Though there's an efficiency loss in wireless charging versus conductive charging, I wonder if there's an efficiency gain that exists in less phones being repaired/replaced because of damage related to conductive charging.
(Note that this is not a well thought out, researched argument - just a dumb thought.)
True, one prematurely replaced cell phone buys quite a few kilowatt-hours of electricity. And add to that that one prematurely replaced hip buys a lot of cellphones.
Ubuntu is, far and away, the worst of them. Make it as bizarre and hard to remember as possible, so long as it rhymes, and flip a coin to determine when it's referred to as the number or the stupid name. You know, just to make sure nobody knows what they're using and what they need.
if only the analogy of drop shipping was well..analogous.
manipulating stocks to go down is way easier than making them go up.
Plus, like i said it's a pure fraud: so you tell me that if i lend you my 1000 shares ( worth 10.000 usd today ) you will give me back that exact number of shares tomorrow plus 200 usd. What you omit to say is that the value of those 1000 shares i will get back tomorrow will be 8.000 usd, which makes you a fraudster and thus a thief.
You're kidding, right? What if I offer to buy your 1000 shares today, but I neglect to inform you that they'll go up tomorrow?
On a recent flight from IAD, just before the flight started boarding, the gate agent announced "Please have your ID available for inspection, TSA will be conduction random ID checks and baggage searches upon boarding". And sure enough, as we boarded, there was a TSA guy with his magic flashlight, randomly checking ID's for validity, and farther into the jetway was a pair of TSA agents randomly searching luggage.
What's the point of a random check if it's announced when passengers can choose not to participate? If I were a bad guy with a fake ID or something bad in my luggage, I'd go home and try again a different day with a different fake ID.
Every so often, driving down the highway in these parts, there'd be a temporary sign erected that said there was a drug checkpoint ahead. These would always be placed just before the next exit came into view. The cops, of course, weren't waiting down the road, but rather at the next offramp.
Many times I have run across a commented section of code that reads something like:
/* Attention future Bill: this section of code sucks and it looks horrendous and awful but I wrote it under a tight deadline. Just hit F3 and let the bitch run; it works, I promise. */
I can only shake my head at myself;-)
Preach! If anyone needs an argument for readable code and appropriate comments, it's this above, perhaps paraphrased: "The poor slob maintaining your work may be you."
And that's not all! Did you know there're identifying numbers on your car, too? Law enforcement can track you and indict you simply because of a number on the backside of your car! You should probably just leave your car at home.
I think you do not understand the separation of powers: legislative power (congress) would make a law prohibiting collecting arbitrary data about individual citizens without reason and companies to provide them that information without due process. Executive power (government) is not allowed to subvert that law.
There isn't much bi-partisan common ground in the US. But on the subject of Congress being unwilling and/or unable to prevent the Executive Branch from violating laws in such areas as arrest, detention, search, seizure and privacy, the parties are of one mind. There are perhaps a handful of Senators and Representatives willing to speak up about it, but even they're too scared to actually point fingers and name names.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
It amazes me that the Repubs somehow convinced the Dems that a few of them might cross over and vote for the ACA if the insurance mandate were included in the plan, when in reality it was apprently intended as a poison pill to try to make the whole deal unpalatable to voters and/or be tossed out by the SCOTUS. I guess I'm also amazed that the SCOTUS didn't toss it out, but maybe that's just to keep "Obamacare" as an issue for 2012 elections.
The thing about talking to your Congresscritter is that eBay can also talk to your Congresscritter. And eBay has a lot more money to "talk" with. I've tried the talking thing, and always get a letter back saying "Thanks for your input, but because of American Exceptionalism/National Security/My no tax pledge/the need for balance/whatever I'm not gonna see it your way. Please feel free to contact me again in the future."
Don't fly Delta, indeed. A gate agent tried to take away my daughter's car seat. And her airplane seat, for that matter, converting her to lap child with no reduction in ticket price. I guess you can't expect a gate agent to know what seats are FAA approved and which ones are not, but perhaps you could expect them to STFU if they've got no clue and lack the aptitude to read the label that says "FAA approved". We told her to mind her own business and she told us that we might as well check the thing since the stewardess certainly wouldn't allow it on, and it would save us hassle by checking it right there instead of on the JetWay (tm). At least the stewardess at the door knew that the FAA allows -- and in fact recommends -- approved child seats for kids that size.
I complained to Delta that their agent tried to convince us to needlessly endanger our daughter and deprive us of a paid for seat, a feat she would have accomplished if we'd just done what she told us. They made a non-apology-apology, and asked my to send them the details of where is happened and our ticket info, etc., but since I didn't feel like being an unpaid customer relations consultant, all I wanted was an insincere but unqualified apology and a worthless promise to make their gate agents more informed about carrying young children.
Also, I was wearing the same t-shirt that day, but I guess I was lucky it was too fucking cold inside and out and I had to layer with a sweater. No telling what some hillbilly on the plane would have thought of it. At least as a white male with no foreign accent or name, I'm not a terrorist.
It's parody, but it's in fairly poor taste when you're in a flying aluminum can with hundreds of people, many of whom are extremely apprehensive about flying at all, let alone with a guy wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists.
Fact is that wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists in an airport while getting onto a plane is going to make a significant number of people very uncomfortable. Many of these people are already quite uncomfortable already without having to deal with jokes about bombs.
The guy wasn't prevented from flying because he made fun of the TSA. He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.
No, the shirt is joking about stupid security, a difference that escapes many people in general and on Slashdot.
However, those consequences should not have to include unwarranted abuse by the TSA. The TSA is there to keep passengers safe by keeping people with ill intent out, period. Their remit does not (or should not) include harassing people who rub them the wrong way. If they detained him purely because of the shirt, then they should be taken to task for that. And this seems to be the case... why else would the airline captain mention the shirt at all?
the TSA didn't harass him- the airline did
RTFA
That could be a new slogan: "The TSA doesn't harass people, corporations with TSA harass people."
Many people don't need to carry around things like credit card numbers. Actually, why would ANYONE need to carry around credit card numbers? That sounds like something that should always remain on the server, locked in a closet somewhere in the company's building.
I don't work in industry but frequent glances over the stuff the business people are always pecking away at on their notebooks and Blackberries seems to indicate that most of it is boring busywork.
It would appear the GP has committed the Slashdot mortal sin of illustrating a point with an example . . .
But in DC it is illegal and near impossible to get one. And he did....
(Could of just kept his mouth shut. And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.)
To a hypothetically well-armed slashdotter, any sufficiently serious disaster is indistinguishable from zombie apocalypse.
Simple solution. Let people be accountable for their own mistakes. Problem solved!
I think that letting any Tom, Dick or Harry design and build his own lock for his safe deposit box would be considered a "mistake" as well. Presumably you wouldn't want to be known as the "bank where everyone's stuff gets stolen"
Ok, you were right after all, I wasn't thinking generally enough . ..
I hate those questions. Seriously. Once I was faced to something like this... had to choose among a list of question at least two in a registration process. It was mandatory.
Question where something like :
- where did you spend your honeymoon... : I'm not married.
. ..
I have honestly no clue what I answer to any of the two question I chose, nor which question I chose.
It doesn't necessarily get easier if you are married, either. Plenty of online accounts you'd probably share with a spouse: utilities, joint checking, etc. Then it's "your grandmother or mine?" or "your fish or my lizard?" or "your song, my song or 'our song'?" Even when you try to come up with a scheme, like "always yours", you've already signed up for a bunch of these before you realize the problem or before the ambiguity problem existed in your "care-free single days."
I treat those questions as just another password prompt.
Right, and you store it securely with the password. So you either won't ever need it or won''t have it if you do need it, since it's lost along with the password. I do it too, and I don't think it's a failure on our parts but of the system of password recovery/secret question as it exists.
I noticed this a while ago. I have a password keeper and record the question and the false answer I provide to the question. Even where I can make up a question, I make up a totally different, unrelated answer and record that.
[John]
I record "correct" answers in a password keeper -- as if some of those questions even have a "right" answer -- but in both our cases the password and the challenge question would either both be available or would be "lost in the same place", as it were.
I use my mother's mother's mother's maiden name. Unless you know my family genealogy, it's a lot harder to get that from Google.
But a lot easier to get from census records, since those become public after ~70 years.
I don't know if you've looked at the 1940 census stuff yet -- and you should, it's fascinating -- but you'd really be doing some work to find my mother in a scan of a handwritten form. Even if you knew her address in 1940. And even if you got past the problem of her name being recorded wrong by the enumerator. Asking the Mormons would be easier.
The best use of security question is to answer them dishonestly/humorously with responses you will remember, or can write down.
Favorite movie? Gigli
First Car? Moon Rover
Mother In Laws Name? Dead
etc..etc..
I tried that, but what seemed hilarious (or maybe clever or perhaps cute) to me once apparently wasn't funny several years later when I needed it. I probably should have written it down. But if I'd written it down, it'd probably be on the same scrap of paper as the password, which I would have either lost or kept in its entirety.
Slashdot Mirror
Though there's an efficiency loss in wireless charging versus conductive charging, I wonder if there's an efficiency gain that exists in less phones being repaired/replaced because of damage related to conductive charging.
(Note that this is not a well thought out, researched argument - just a dumb thought.)
True, one prematurely replaced cell phone buys quite a few kilowatt-hours of electricity. And add to that that one prematurely replaced hip buys a lot of cellphones.
Ubuntu is, far and away, the worst of them. Make it as bizarre and hard to remember as possible, so long as it rhymes, and flip a coin to determine when it's referred to as the number or the stupid name. You know, just to make sure nobody knows what they're using and what they need.
It's not rhyming, it's alliteration.
if only the analogy of drop shipping was well..analogous. manipulating stocks to go down is way easier than making them go up. Plus, like i said it's a pure fraud: so you tell me that if i lend you my 1000 shares ( worth 10.000 usd today ) you will give me back that exact number of shares tomorrow plus 200 usd. What you omit to say is that the value of those 1000 shares i will get back tomorrow will be 8.000 usd, which makes you a fraudster and thus a thief.
You're kidding, right? What if I offer to buy your 1000 shares today, but I neglect to inform you that they'll go up tomorrow?
Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?
I little part of me hopes that it is the rightful party that's behind the takedown. I'd think we'd all be happy to give them what they deserve.
You're part of the problem.
If you want to help spread the Linux base, such an attitude doesn't help.
If you don't care, then please continue as you are.
A satisfied user doesn't help "spread the Linux base"? Why not, I ask seriously?
On a recent flight from IAD, just before the flight started boarding, the gate agent announced "Please have your ID available for inspection, TSA will be conduction random ID checks and baggage searches upon boarding". And sure enough, as we boarded, there was a TSA guy with his magic flashlight, randomly checking ID's for validity, and farther into the jetway was a pair of TSA agents randomly searching luggage.
What's the point of a random check if it's announced when passengers can choose not to participate? If I were a bad guy with a fake ID or something bad in my luggage, I'd go home and try again a different day with a different fake ID.
Every so often, driving down the highway in these parts, there'd be a temporary sign erected that said there was a drug checkpoint ahead. These would always be placed just before the next exit came into view. The cops, of course, weren't waiting down the road, but rather at the next offramp.
Preach! If anyone needs an argument for readable code and appropriate comments, it's this above, perhaps paraphrased: "The poor slob maintaining your work may be you."
As usual, the key here is never attract their interest.
I think that that is the message.
And that's not all! Did you know there're identifying numbers on your car, too? Law enforcement can track you and indict you simply because of a number on the backside of your car! You should probably just leave your car at home.
Apparently so.
I think you do not understand the separation of powers: legislative power (congress) would make a law prohibiting collecting arbitrary data about individual citizens without reason and companies to provide them that information without due process. Executive power (government) is not allowed to subvert that law.
There isn't much bi-partisan common ground in the US. But on the subject of Congress being unwilling and/or unable to prevent the Executive Branch from violating laws in such areas as arrest, detention, search, seizure and privacy, the parties are of one mind. There are perhaps a handful of Senators and Representatives willing to speak up about it, but even they're too scared to actually point fingers and name names.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
It amazes me that the Repubs somehow convinced the Dems that a few of them might cross over and vote for the ACA if the insurance mandate were included in the plan, when in reality it was apprently intended as a poison pill to try to make the whole deal unpalatable to voters and/or be tossed out by the SCOTUS. I guess I'm also amazed that the SCOTUS didn't toss it out, but maybe that's just to keep "Obamacare" as an issue for 2012 elections.
My health plan is to avoid getting sick.
I wouldn't do that long-term, though. I'm only temporarily contracting and start a full time job with insurance benefits in two weeks.
That's sort of the "rhythm method" of health care: hope and pray you don't get sick when you're not covered.
The thing about talking to your Congresscritter is that eBay can also talk to your Congresscritter. And eBay has a lot more money to "talk" with. I've tried the talking thing, and always get a letter back saying "Thanks for your input, but because of American Exceptionalism/National Security/My no tax pledge/the need for balance/whatever I'm not gonna see it your way. Please feel free to contact me again in the future."
Don't fly Delta, indeed. A gate agent tried to take away my daughter's car seat. And her airplane seat, for that matter, converting her to lap child with no reduction in ticket price. I guess you can't expect a gate agent to know what seats are FAA approved and which ones are not, but perhaps you could expect them to STFU if they've got no clue and lack the aptitude to read the label that says "FAA approved". We told her to mind her own business and she told us that we might as well check the thing since the stewardess certainly wouldn't allow it on, and it would save us hassle by checking it right there instead of on the JetWay (tm). At least the stewardess at the door knew that the FAA allows -- and in fact recommends -- approved child seats for kids that size.
I complained to Delta that their agent tried to convince us to needlessly endanger our daughter and deprive us of a paid for seat, a feat she would have accomplished if we'd just done what she told us. They made a non-apology-apology, and asked my to send them the details of where is happened and our ticket info, etc., but since I didn't feel like being an unpaid customer relations consultant, all I wanted was an insincere but unqualified apology and a worthless promise to make their gate agents more informed about carrying young children.
Also, I was wearing the same t-shirt that day, but I guess I was lucky it was too fucking cold inside and out and I had to layer with a sweater. No telling what some hillbilly on the plane would have thought of it. At least as a white male with no foreign accent or name, I'm not a terrorist.
It's parody, but it's in fairly poor taste when you're in a flying aluminum can with hundreds of people, many of whom are extremely apprehensive about flying at all, let alone with a guy wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists.
Fact is that wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists in an airport while getting onto a plane is going to make a significant number of people very uncomfortable. Many of these people are already quite uncomfortable already without having to deal with jokes about bombs.
The guy wasn't prevented from flying because he made fun of the TSA. He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.
No, the shirt is joking about stupid security, a difference that escapes many people in general and on Slashdot.
What kind of idiot wears a shirt that says "bombs" and "terrorists" and "gonna kill us all" onto a plane?
Isn't that pretty much what the existence of the TSA says?
However, those consequences should not have to include unwarranted abuse by the TSA. The TSA is there to keep passengers safe by keeping people with ill intent out, period. Their remit does not (or should not) include harassing people who rub them the wrong way. If they detained him purely because of the shirt, then they should be taken to task for that. And this seems to be the case... why else would the airline captain mention the shirt at all?
the TSA didn't harass him- the airline did RTFA
That could be a new slogan: "The TSA doesn't harass people, corporations with TSA harass people."
Many people don't need to carry around things like credit card numbers. Actually, why would ANYONE need to carry around credit card numbers? That sounds like something that should always remain on the server, locked in a closet somewhere in the company's building.
I don't work in industry but frequent glances over the stuff the business people are always pecking away at on their notebooks and Blackberries seems to indicate that most of it is boring busywork.
It would appear the GP has committed the Slashdot mortal sin of illustrating a point with an example . . .
But in DC it is illegal and near impossible to get one. And he did.... (Could of just kept his mouth shut. And when things hit the crapper in another decade, he'd have the means to keep himself and his neighbors safe.)
To a hypothetically well-armed slashdotter, any sufficiently serious disaster is indistinguishable from zombie apocalypse.
Simple solution. Let people be accountable for their own mistakes. Problem solved!
I think that letting any Tom, Dick or Harry design and build his own lock for his safe deposit box would be considered a "mistake" as well. Presumably you wouldn't want to be known as the "bank where everyone's stuff gets stolen"
Ok, you were right after all, I wasn't thinking generally enough . . .
I hate those questions. Seriously. Once I was faced to something like this... had to choose among a list of question at least two in a registration process. It was mandatory.
Question where something like : - where did you spend your honeymoon... : I'm not married.
. . .
I have honestly no clue what I answer to any of the two question I chose, nor which question I chose.
It doesn't necessarily get easier if you are married, either. Plenty of online accounts you'd probably share with a spouse: utilities, joint checking, etc. Then it's "your grandmother or mine?" or "your fish or my lizard?" or "your song, my song or 'our song'?" Even when you try to come up with a scheme, like "always yours", you've already signed up for a bunch of these before you realize the problem or before the ambiguity problem existed in your "care-free single days."
I treat those questions as just another password prompt.
Right, and you store it securely with the password. So you either won't ever need it or won''t have it if you do need it, since it's lost along with the password. I do it too, and I don't think it's a failure on our parts but of the system of password recovery/secret question as it exists.
I noticed this a while ago. I have a password keeper and record the question and the false answer I provide to the question. Even where I can make up a question, I make up a totally different, unrelated answer and record that.
[John]
I record "correct" answers in a password keeper -- as if some of those questions even have a "right" answer -- but in both our cases the password and the challenge question would either both be available or would be "lost in the same place", as it were.
I use my mother's mother's mother's maiden name. Unless you know my family genealogy, it's a lot harder to get that from Google.
But a lot easier to get from census records, since those become public after ~70 years.
I don't know if you've looked at the 1940 census stuff yet -- and you should, it's fascinating -- but you'd really be doing some work to find my mother in a scan of a handwritten form. Even if you knew her address in 1940. And even if you got past the problem of her name being recorded wrong by the enumerator. Asking the Mormons would be easier.
The best use of security question is to answer them dishonestly/humorously with responses you will remember, or can write down.
Favorite movie? Gigli First Car? Moon Rover Mother In Laws Name? Dead etc..etc..
I tried that, but what seemed hilarious (or maybe clever or perhaps cute) to me once apparently wasn't funny several years later when I needed it. I probably should have written it down. But if I'd written it down, it'd probably be on the same scrap of paper as the password, which I would have either lost or kept in its entirety.