The PayPal ATM/Debit Card is available to users who:
* Have been a PayPal member for at least 60 days
* Have a U.S. PayPal account
* Register a credit card where the monthly statement is sent to a physical street address (not a P.O. Box)
So they have a credit card if 1- You're American, 2- You *already* have a credit card registered on your PayPal account.
Move back to asia? Go ahead I'll see you in Cambodia! How about rural China? I think you mean Japan, other than Nipon and maybe S Korea, not much else going in "Asia".
Same goes for people saying "America" when they actually mean the "United States of America". A guy coming from there is an American, but the country he comes from is not America, it's the United States of America.
When you talk about "America", remember that you are also talking about Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Panama, Cuba, etc.
People confuse a country with a continent waaaaayyy too often, although this is the first time I've seen Japan being confused with all of Asia...
Bah... nevermind me... for some reason it didn't work the first time, but it worked the second and third time, and not the fourth... so I guess my browser is intermittently vulnerable for some reason...
Thank goodness we've found our first vulnerability in Firefox.
I don't want to disappoint y'all, but I did the test as described on the Secunia website, and Firefox 1.0 -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr-FR; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0 -- doesn't seem to be vulnerable to this particular exploit...
And I can't wait to see someone play this on their PSP in the bus.........
Both Nintendo and Sony included a mic in their portable console, but it is only of a limited use when people carry those portable consoles to public places...
And a couple of lines below, it clearly says All space faring nations (USA, UK, Russia, China, etc.) refused to sign it. I should learn to read it all before posting...:-S
My bad... somehow, I thought that On April 25 the United States Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. meant they ratified it, but I guess it doesn't... ahhh... the joy of politics...
It cannot be purchased because nobody has the right to sell it because nobody owns it. IIRC, this has been agreed upon by all countries in the UN (feel free to correct me on this).
In 1979 a Moon Treaty was drafted by the United Nations which prohibits military action on (Article 3) and ownership of the moon by signatory states, their corporations or citizens (Article 11). Non-signatory UN-member states are free to accede to it at any time. Non-UN-member states appear unbound by the treaty.
Since the US signed the Moon Treaty, no US citizen may claim ownership on any part of the moon.
Yes the games are clearly about killing -- but context is important.
Although I do not support their cause entirely, they do have a point though. Yes, context it important. Some war games could be good if you consider being on the "good" side. However, look at GTA3... context : You're a criminal dude that does criminal deeds for money. Here, the context is bad from any point of view.
Not all of the violent games have a bad context, but it doesn't mean none of them have.
In the past, most other systems are sold at a loss when they first debut.
IANAL, but I though anti-dumping laws were supposed to prevent a company to sell something at a loss to undermine competition... isn't that exactly what Sony is trying to do to the NintendoDS?
we should probably have warnings on powder blue crayons too. cause god know how bad it is when one of those gets jammed up your nose
Common sense (although many consumers lack it) lets you know that jamming a crayon up your nose is asking for trouble. However, even with common sense, you wouldn't expect a cell phone to explode. You bought a tool that lets you speak with people from far away, not a stick of dynamite.
Consumers are indeed jaded enough by the warnings of "do not cram this up your butt" and the like, and since most of these stupid warnings are for inappropriate use of the object, they shouldn't even be there. There should be a law against plain stupidity, and lawsuits because "the manual didn't say I shouldn't jump out the window with this pillow" should never deserve to be heard... only in America can the stupid hope for a better life.
Now, when the hazard comes from regular use of the item, like... talking on your cell phone, well if said phone can explode, or "vent superheated gases" on me, I think I would like to know.
Google displays the images from rogue Web sites operated in foreign countries, according to Perfect 10's lawsuit. The search engine also provides links to password hacking sites that provide ways to gain illegal access to Perfect 10's Web site, the suit alleges.
The parent of my previous post was talking about linking to about anything on the web, while here, the issue is linking to illegal pages.
"Google displays the images from rogue Web sites operated in foreign countries" = Redistributing copyrighted material without owner's permission
"The search engine also provides links to password hacking sites" = Linking to pages instructing you on how to do evil stuff.
The right to link to a legitimate page has never been at stake.
If Google were to be held accountable for the legality of every site and image they point to, well that would be the end of Google.
It's not because they pointed to the image, but because they cached the image. Caching requires copying the image on your own server, then redistributing it. If the image is copyrighted, then copying and redistributing without permission is illegal. Even if they took the copyrighted image from a site that stole the image at first doesn't mean they aren't distributing a copyrighted image. If I buy a stolen car, the cops can arrest me for being in possession of a stolen car, even though I didn't steal it myself; just like Google can be sued for distributing copyrighted material, even though they didn't steal it themselves.
If it is found illegal for Google To LINK to Sites with copyrighted images, or better, PAGES (text can be copyrighted too, same thing). Then what?
Godammit people! The issue here isn't about LINKING to a page, it's about making a cached copy of copyrighted material and redistributing it for free without owner's permission!
There is a world of difference between the two, it is called "Fair use".
When you do a text search, Google provides you with a couple of words that appear in the page, but so few of them that it easily falls in the "fair use" category, and you have to get to the actual page to read the whole copyrighted text. But when it comes to images, Google Image displays the entire image (at a smaller resolution, but it's still the whole image that's being displayed), without owner's permission.
Or all sites who want to be part of the search engine must perhaps sign some disclaimer where the web site owner personally guarantees the site never will violate any copyright laws...
If I own copyrighted images and decided to not get listed on a search engine, but somebody steals my images and displays them on their website, and the search engine copies the images from that site into its cache. Even if the search engine didn't copy the images from MY site, it doesn't mean that it didn't copy images that it was not supposed to. Grey area, but copyright owners do have the rights over the copies (hence the name...).
My computer, like most others, stores copies of nearly all webpages it goes to in the cache. Does that mean we are all in violation of copyright laws?
No, because you're not redistributing those images. Fair use allows you to cache the images for your own web browser to use in a personal browsing session. Fair use does not allow one to cache the images and then redistribute the cached copies without permission.
The moment someone on the web cannot link to copyrighted material anymore (which is as stupid as not being allowed to have a referencelist in the back of a book) there's going to be very little left to link to.
Linking to copyrighted material is one thing, caching copyrighted material, which basically is making a copy of that material, keeping it on your own server, and redistributing it for everyone to see, that is another thing...
Technically speaking, Google *do* have copyrighted pictures on their servers, and they *are* showing them to anybody that asks for it without the express permission of the copyright owner.
I picked my DS up this morning, it's not that large
It's slighly bigger than I expected it to be, but dang are those game cards (or cartridges... what are they really?), I didn't expect them to be that small! God, how can they fit so much information on something so small?!?
I didn't say you were supporting Diebold machines... I was simply reacting to your saying that the alternative of voting for your president on one day and on everything else on another day being a waste of resource, when your current system is no less a waste of resource.
Why have two election days when you can do it all in one instead, and waste less time and resources?
Why have a single election day when you can have two instead, and keep voters confidence and people knowing that their vote actually counted. Just how much money did all those Diebold machine cost? And how much time did people spend arguing about the accuracy of those machines, and the legality, and testing, etc. That is less a waste of time and resources... how?
All 20 races? Plus the amendments and propositions? And the 30 or so judges to be voted on?
Yeah well... what's the idea of jamming up everything on the same ballot? Or even voting for everything on the same day? Anything that makes it more complicated only improves the odds of democracy not being respected because of "technical problems".
GameKnot is some kind of "play by mail" chess server... With a timer with a minimum of 3 days per move (and up to several weeks per move), it is ideal for people who want to play but can only afford a couple of minutes per day (for cause of being too busy reading/.)
I play there regularly... currently doing 15 games simultaneously...
Slashdot Mirror
From the link you pointed to:
The PayPal ATM/Debit Card is available to users who:
* Have been a PayPal member for at least 60 days
* Have a U.S. PayPal account
* Register a credit card where the monthly statement is sent to a physical street address (not a P.O. Box)
So they have a credit card if 1- You're American, 2- You *already* have a credit card registered on your PayPal account.
Pretty useless if you ask me
Same goes for people saying "America" when they actually mean the "United States of America". A guy coming from there is an American, but the country he comes from is not America, it's the United States of America.
When you talk about "America", remember that you are also talking about Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Panama, Cuba, etc.
People confuse a country with a continent waaaaayyy too often, although this is the first time I've seen Japan being confused with all of Asia...
Bah... nevermind me... for some reason it didn't work the first time, but it worked the second and third time, and not the fourth... so I guess my browser is intermittently vulnerable for some reason...
I don't want to disappoint y'all, but I did the test as described on the Secunia website, and Firefox 1.0 -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr-FR; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0 -- doesn't seem to be vulnerable to this particular exploit...
Both Nintendo and Sony included a mic in their portable console, but it is only of a limited use when people carry those portable consoles to public places...
Firefox does not support ActiveX and probably never will. Netscape will support ActiveX. Netscape is not Firefox.
It used to be that Firefox was based on old Netscape code, now Netscape is based on old Firefox code...
And a couple of lines below, it clearly says All space faring nations (USA, UK, Russia, China, etc.) refused to sign it. I should learn to read it all before posting... :-S
My bad... somehow, I thought that On April 25 the United States Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. meant they ratified it, but I guess it doesn't... ahhh... the joy of politics...
You are correct on this. From Wikipedia :
In 1979 a Moon Treaty was drafted by the United Nations which prohibits military action on (Article 3) and ownership of the moon by signatory states, their corporations or citizens (Article 11). Non-signatory UN-member states are free to accede to it at any time. Non-UN-member states appear unbound by the treaty.
Since the US signed the Moon Treaty, no US citizen may claim ownership on any part of the moon.
I totally support you, and you are not alone in the situation.
From this article:
so the 11.8 seconds include both the mental computing and the writing down of the answer...Although I do not support their cause entirely, they do have a point though. Yes, context it important. Some war games could be good if you consider being on the "good" side. However, look at GTA3... context : You're a criminal dude that does criminal deeds for money. Here, the context is bad from any point of view.
Not all of the violent games have a bad context, but it doesn't mean none of them have.
IANAL, but I though anti-dumping laws were supposed to prevent a company to sell something at a loss to undermine competition... isn't that exactly what Sony is trying to do to the NintendoDS?
Common sense (although many consumers lack it) lets you know that jamming a crayon up your nose is asking for trouble. However, even with common sense, you wouldn't expect a cell phone to explode. You bought a tool that lets you speak with people from far away, not a stick of dynamite.
Consumers are indeed jaded enough by the warnings of "do not cram this up your butt" and the like, and since most of these stupid warnings are for inappropriate use of the object, they shouldn't even be there. There should be a law against plain stupidity, and lawsuits because "the manual didn't say I shouldn't jump out the window with this pillow" should never deserve to be heard... only in America can the stupid hope for a better life.
Now, when the hazard comes from regular use of the item, like... talking on your cell phone, well if said phone can explode, or "vent superheated gases" on me, I think I would like to know.
The parent of my previous post was talking about linking to about anything on the web, while here, the issue is linking to illegal pages.
"Google displays the images from rogue Web sites operated in foreign countries" = Redistributing copyrighted material without owner's permission
"The search engine also provides links to password hacking sites" = Linking to pages instructing you on how to do evil stuff.
The right to link to a legitimate page has never been at stake.
It's not because they pointed to the image, but because they cached the image. Caching requires copying the image on your own server, then redistributing it. If the image is copyrighted, then copying and redistributing without permission is illegal. Even if they took the copyrighted image from a site that stole the image at first doesn't mean they aren't distributing a copyrighted image. If I buy a stolen car, the cops can arrest me for being in possession of a stolen car, even though I didn't steal it myself; just like Google can be sued for distributing copyrighted material, even though they didn't steal it themselves.
Godammit people! The issue here isn't about LINKING to a page, it's about making a cached copy of copyrighted material and redistributing it for free without owner's permission!
There is a world of difference between the two, it is called "Fair use".
When you do a text search, Google provides you with a couple of words that appear in the page, but so few of them that it easily falls in the "fair use" category, and you have to get to the actual page to read the whole copyrighted text. But when it comes to images, Google Image displays the entire image (at a smaller resolution, but it's still the whole image that's being displayed), without owner's permission.
Or all sites who want to be part of the search engine must perhaps sign some disclaimer where the web site owner personally guarantees the site never will violate any copyright laws...
If I own copyrighted images and decided to not get listed on a search engine, but somebody steals my images and displays them on their website, and the search engine copies the images from that site into its cache. Even if the search engine didn't copy the images from MY site, it doesn't mean that it didn't copy images that it was not supposed to. Grey area, but copyright owners do have the rights over the copies (hence the name...).
No, because you're not redistributing those images. Fair use allows you to cache the images for your own web browser to use in a personal browsing session. Fair use does not allow one to cache the images and then redistribute the cached copies without permission.
Linking to copyrighted material is one thing, caching copyrighted material, which basically is making a copy of that material, keeping it on your own server, and redistributing it for everyone to see, that is another thing...
Technically speaking, Google *do* have copyrighted pictures on their servers, and they *are* showing them to anybody that asks for it without the express permission of the copyright owner.
Caching in an interresting grey area...
It's slighly bigger than I expected it to be, but dang are those game cards (or cartridges... what are they really?), I didn't expect them to be that small! God, how can they fit so much information on something so small?!?
I'm really impressed here.
I didn't say you were supporting Diebold machines... I was simply reacting to your saying that the alternative of voting for your president on one day and on everything else on another day being a waste of resource, when your current system is no less a waste of resource.
Well then... get more people to count the votes. Where's the problem?
Why have a single election day when you can have two instead, and keep voters confidence and people knowing that their vote actually counted. Just how much money did all those Diebold machine cost? And how much time did people spend arguing about the accuracy of those machines, and the legality, and testing, etc. That is less a waste of time and resources... how?
Yeah well... what's the idea of jamming up everything on the same ballot? Or even voting for everything on the same day? Anything that makes it more complicated only improves the odds of democracy not being respected because of "technical problems".
I play there regularly... currently doing 15 games simultaneously...