Virgin Mobile is a good bet, I'm an American too, while I was in Toronto I stopped at one of their kiosks and bought a 'feature phone'. The only issue I had was that my bank had to call me (they thought it was fraud). VM had no problem activating a phone for me.
Your best bet would be to buy a MicroSIM from them, they do sell them.
Looks like the SIM is $5 and the service is $20 (but it jumps to $35 if you use more than 500MB, automatically, that covers you to 5GB, which isn't really that bad).
TFA deson't make any sense. The ratio of technical support that ends up being hardware tells us nothing about the hardware fault rate. It could simply be that people are less likely to have other problems with the phone, or that the users are more technical on average and more likely to be able to solve a non-hardware problem on their own.
For instance, let's say:
Device A: 2 million sold, 1 million support calls, 100K hardware calls
Device B: 4 million sold, 1 million support calls, 150K hardware calls
Device A: "10%" Device B: "15%"
But really, the failure rate for A would be 5% whereas the rate for B would be 3.75%.
I've got the 'choice' between Frontier DSL and Time Warner. I will drop my $60/mo 30 Mbps down service if Time Warner starts doing this and Frontier doesn't. I've gone legit with Netflix, which I've had for a few years now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let some corporate lobby like the RIAA decide whether I'm allowed on the net this week. I have absolutely no faith in their investigators, nor do I believe that they'll have any reason to tell the truth.
In fact, they'll probably have notices or even lockdowns sent out to random groups of people each week just to "remind" them that they're watching.
I'm not aware of any support provided by Mozilla, other than bugzilla (not that it's really a support channel).
The support problem would fall to the developers. I'm sure Mozilla could allow developers to set a max version at their discretion, thus allowing the developers to take the risk that their "versionless" add-on would fail in some future version. Some devs might prefer that to having to constantly submit updates for new versions that have no effect on their add-on.
With enough work, a mechanism to detect and disable a failing add-on could probably be created.
I've never heard of the Compatibility Reporter (based on its name that's not what I would have assumed it did).
I use Chrome now, it's trivial to create extensions for it and I've never had an update for it break all of my extensions. It also doesn't require three clicks (one of which is hidden) and a pop-up to let me view an HTTPS site that happens to have a mis-matching certificate (like <URL:https://jax-ws.java.net> which has plenty of links pointing to it.)
It's not a 'few extra steps' if the solution so well hidden. A button with one of those stupid "you can't click OK until you wait three seconds" boxes would be a "few steps" for enabling an add-on, but a simple checkbox would be better.
As I remember, the Mozilla Add-ons site does not allow plugins to be posted if they have a maxVersion that hasn't been released yet (that's the gist of it anyway).
You might be able to post an add-on with a maxVersion of 4.1alpha or something, but it would break on 4.1 final. Of course, there's no way to quickly re-enable the add-on, because Mozilla thinks you can't be trusted to run your own browser, an interesting concept coming from open source software.
A union isn't a requirement for job security or reasonable income. My income (without a degree of any kind) is more than reasonable, and my job is completely secure. What's more, I can hardly go on an interview and not get a job offer. As a software engineer, I can build my skills and find new problems to solve by changing jobs every few years (or I can stay at a place that I like). I hate seeing a company where all of the engineers have realized they'll never be fired, and have started to slack off on good design and due diligence. Making applications secure isn't always 'fun', sometimes the only reason an engineer will do it properly is because they'll get in trouble if they don't. The same can happen in an environment where there's little accountability (which can happen without a union, but will happen if there is a union).
A union might be fine for professions where employees are interchangeable, but where they aren't, a union can be very harmful. Working without a union does not mean I'm "hurting the workers and hurting the country" and to suggest otherwise is insulting. I make 43% more than my area's median income. All a union could do is charge me dues.
I would also argue that teachers are NOT interchangeable, and those who cannot properly do their jobs should not have job security. Sometimes the best wake up call is to be fired and realize that you need to pursue a different profession where you will be more productive.
Damn, I hope that was meant to be sarcastic. I can't even join a union (none exists for my industry or job, and no, I'm not a manager).
Plus, I would say the teacher's unions are probably hurting the country quite a bit more than all of the programmers and knowledge workers in the country.
In physical security, you should always assume everyone has a lockpick. Likewise, in internet security you should assume everyone has metasploit, nmap, wireshark, etc. Building systems that are secure from cracking is not hard (protecting against a DDoS attack effectively is much more difficult). If you hire the cheapest external developers and contractors you can find to build your financial services website, don't be surprised if it's easily hacked. Good engineers should have no difficulty analyzing systems to find holes like this. If they understand the protocols and software they are working with, and avoid adding layer upon layer of "security software" that ends up obfuscating real holes while blocking non-existent problems (why would virus scanning text input be useful? Is your software really stupid enough to execute it?) then they'll have no problem writing secure software.
The problem from a business perspective, I think, is that an executive can't simply buy a product to secure their software. They instead must hire good engineers (potentially at a higher salary). In fact, there's a plethora of tools on the market for executives to buy which haven't been tested for security, and which can't be verified by internal developers but which are sold as speeding up development. Plus, of course security testing (like all testing) will always get shaved down to the minimum so that you can meet arbitrary release dates set by those who couldn't manage a Hello World program but think they understand development.
The law bans *secret* recording without consent. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a company to record tech support calls without specifically asking for consent (saying that you're recording makes it non-secret, but doesn't mean that anyone consented).
Of course, once you ask for consent it's not secret anymore I suppose...
The point here is that the guy was pointing the phone right at the cops, and the cops are arguing that's not sufficient to tell that he's recording.
police should not see one penny of traffic ticket revenue, and neither should cities
You're absolutely right. Letting towns set the speed limit, manage the cops and collect the fines creates a perverse incentive. It's easy to find towns that will instruct their cops to start issuing more tickets so that they can make the budget. The law is supposed to be about justice, not revenue.
I typically just mark misdirected messages as spam. I didn't request the message (so it's unsolicited), and it's the sender's duty to get the address correct, I'm certainly not going to put time or thought into fixing it.
I once got an e-mail from Dell that gave me a login to someone else's account, including their name, address and various other bits of information. I called them to fix that. I also got an e-mail from classmates thanking me for opening a new account, I closed the account.
Bottom line - if someone's signing up for a service, they better get the address correct, and online services should ALWAYS verify the address (by sending a message to it that contains a link) BEFORE finishing account creation.
Company A sells fertile seeds that produce X food on good land (which costs $Y per year to own, till, and harvest). The seeds cost $Y/20.
Company B sells infertile GMO seeds that produce 7X food on good land. The seeds cost $Y/10.
Company C sells infertile hybrid seeds that produce 5X food on good land. The seeds cost $Y/15. (Note that many foodstuffs were grown from such hybrid seeds before the introduction of GMO seeds).
In other words, the fixed cost of the land far outstrips the costs of the seeds. When you take into account the natural organization limit for a 'family' farm in terms of amount of land tended, and the reduced pest and disease control costs with GMO plants as opposed to the other two, GMO seeds end up winning in a free market, assuming the GMO produce sells for the same price as non-GMO produce.
Remember that keeping seeds also requires the farmer to actually retrieve and store the seeds. There was some use of fertile seeds in the early-to-mid 20th century, but infertile hybrids were common, since they tended to produce larger yields through hybrid vigor.
I would actually prefer to see the use of non-GMO plants, but I think the best way to accomplish this is to ban the patenting of genes, and remove any other "IP" protection from GMO plants. The market would quickly dry up.
Tell you what, we New Yorkers will make you a deal:
We'll take care of the 9/11 workers. You give us back the $20 billion in taxes that we pay to the feds each year and don't get back.
If the Federal government gets to tax us and give that money to other states, and require us to get passports in order to go to Canada (thus depressing trade and tourism), then we get a few bucks back when our public workers suffer major health problems as a result of an attack carried out by a terrorist organization which received training and funding from the federal government.
Sounds like you have a DVD that used "anamorphic widescreen" - where the video really 4:3 recorded from 16:9, and they used an analog filter to squish the image horizontally. I noticed my PS3 sometimes couldn't detect that unless I manually forced the aspect ratio.
"That copyright permits them to use the image for non-commercial purposes."
False. Copyright gives them *full* rights to the work. If they want to sell them (maybe you'll be famous 20 years from now, maybe they'll sell it for use as clip art) they can do so without your consent. If they just want it for non-commercial and portfolio uses, I'll happily license it *to them* for that purpose. Otherwise, I hired them and it's work-for-hire. If they don't want the job I'll give it to someone else.
"Your own CA" won't be trusted by browsers. SSL is intended to verify that when you create a connection to 'hotmail.com' the machine on the other end is in fact hotmail.com. Merely encrypting the connection does nothing if I can pretend to be hotmail.com and record your username/password.
The problem is that the browsers trust CAs which are unscrupulous.
In this case the claim is that access to information about Satanism is causing people to become possessed. Most sane people who read the article will probably gloss over that as the mutterings of a raving loon, but they actually believe it. It's equivalent to claiming that reading a book will cause you to go insane, and making a claim like that is, well, crazy.
In 1992, Congress passed a law making it a federal crime to use a weapon to steal a motor vehicle that's been shipped through interstate commerce "through force or violence or intimidation."
I don't even understand why the feds need to raise taxes to maintain roads. The states already tax fuel and maintain roads, if they need more money let them raise the revenue. Let the states maintain the sections of interstate roads that pass through them. The only reason the federal government creates taxes like this is so that they can hold the money hostage to force states to pass laws in areas the federal government has no authority over.
Eliminate the federal road tax.
Re:Can't switch 'til delicious add-on works
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 1
Just like declaring it incompatible makes it so. The Firefox add-on compatibility scheme leaves much to be desired. I remembering maintaining an add-on that worked fine on Firefox 2+ (including the Firefox 4 alphas) but each time Mozilla released a new version we had to update the XML to add the latest version.
Slashdot Mirror
Virgin Mobile is a good bet, I'm an American too, while I was in Toronto I stopped at one of their kiosks and bought a 'feature phone'. The only issue I had was that my bank had to call me (they thought it was fraud). VM had no problem activating a phone for me.
Your best bet would be to buy a MicroSIM from them, they do sell them.
Here's the link to their page for tablet people:
http://www.virginmobile.ca/en/hot-offers/offer-tablet-50.html
Looks like the SIM is $5 and the service is $20 (but it jumps to $35 if you use more than 500MB, automatically, that covers you to 5GB, which isn't really that bad).
TFA deson't make any sense. The ratio of technical support that ends up being hardware tells us nothing about the hardware fault rate. It could simply be that people are less likely to have other problems with the phone, or that the users are more technical on average and more likely to be able to solve a non-hardware problem on their own.
For instance, let's say:
Device A: 2 million sold, 1 million support calls, 100K hardware calls
Device B: 4 million sold, 1 million support calls, 150K hardware calls
Device A: "10%"
Device B: "15%"
But really, the failure rate for A would be 5% whereas the rate for B would be 3.75%.
In short, the article's author is an idiot.
I've got the 'choice' between Frontier DSL and Time Warner. I will drop my $60/mo 30 Mbps down service if Time Warner starts doing this and Frontier doesn't. I've gone legit with Netflix, which I've had for a few years now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let some corporate lobby like the RIAA decide whether I'm allowed on the net this week. I have absolutely no faith in their investigators, nor do I believe that they'll have any reason to tell the truth.
In fact, they'll probably have notices or even lockdowns sent out to random groups of people each week just to "remind" them that they're watching.
I'm not aware of any support provided by Mozilla, other than bugzilla (not that it's really a support channel).
The support problem would fall to the developers. I'm sure Mozilla could allow developers to set a max version at their discretion, thus allowing the developers to take the risk that their "versionless" add-on would fail in some future version. Some devs might prefer that to having to constantly submit updates for new versions that have no effect on their add-on.
With enough work, a mechanism to detect and disable a failing add-on could probably be created.
I've never heard of the Compatibility Reporter (based on its name that's not what I would have assumed it did).
I use Chrome now, it's trivial to create extensions for it and I've never had an update for it break all of my extensions. It also doesn't require three clicks (one of which is hidden) and a pop-up to let me view an HTTPS site that happens to have a mis-matching certificate (like <URL:https://jax-ws.java.net> which has plenty of links pointing to it.)
It's not a 'few extra steps' if the solution so well hidden. A button with one of those stupid "you can't click OK until you wait three seconds" boxes would be a "few steps" for enabling an add-on, but a simple checkbox would be better.
As I remember, the Mozilla Add-ons site does not allow plugins to be posted if they have a maxVersion that hasn't been released yet (that's the gist of it anyway).
You might be able to post an add-on with a maxVersion of 4.1alpha or something, but it would break on 4.1 final. Of course, there's no way to quickly re-enable the add-on, because Mozilla thinks you can't be trusted to run your own browser, an interesting concept coming from open source software.
A union isn't a requirement for job security or reasonable income. My income (without a degree of any kind) is more than reasonable, and my job is completely secure. What's more, I can hardly go on an interview and not get a job offer. As a software engineer, I can build my skills and find new problems to solve by changing jobs every few years (or I can stay at a place that I like). I hate seeing a company where all of the engineers have realized they'll never be fired, and have started to slack off on good design and due diligence. Making applications secure isn't always 'fun', sometimes the only reason an engineer will do it properly is because they'll get in trouble if they don't. The same can happen in an environment where there's little accountability (which can happen without a union, but will happen if there is a union).
A union might be fine for professions where employees are interchangeable, but where they aren't, a union can be very harmful. Working without a union does not mean I'm "hurting the workers and hurting the country" and to suggest otherwise is insulting. I make 43% more than my area's median income. All a union could do is charge me dues.
I would also argue that teachers are NOT interchangeable, and those who cannot properly do their jobs should not have job security. Sometimes the best wake up call is to be fired and realize that you need to pursue a different profession where you will be more productive.
Damn, I hope that was meant to be sarcastic. I can't even join a union (none exists for my industry or job, and no, I'm not a manager).
Plus, I would say the teacher's unions are probably hurting the country quite a bit more than all of the programmers and knowledge workers in the country.
In physical security, you should always assume everyone has a lockpick. Likewise, in internet security you should assume everyone has metasploit, nmap, wireshark, etc. Building systems that are secure from cracking is not hard (protecting against a DDoS attack effectively is much more difficult). If you hire the cheapest external developers and contractors you can find to build your financial services website, don't be surprised if it's easily hacked. Good engineers should have no difficulty analyzing systems to find holes like this. If they understand the protocols and software they are working with, and avoid adding layer upon layer of "security software" that ends up obfuscating real holes while blocking non-existent problems (why would virus scanning text input be useful? Is your software really stupid enough to execute it?) then they'll have no problem writing secure software.
The problem from a business perspective, I think, is that an executive can't simply buy a product to secure their software. They instead must hire good engineers (potentially at a higher salary). In fact, there's a plethora of tools on the market for executives to buy which haven't been tested for security, and which can't be verified by internal developers but which are sold as speeding up development. Plus, of course security testing (like all testing) will always get shaved down to the minimum so that you can meet arbitrary release dates set by those who couldn't manage a Hello World program but think they understand development.
I would never go there. I like to read the news while I eat... and I don't carry a newspaper.
The law bans *secret* recording without consent. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a company to record tech support calls without specifically asking for consent (saying that you're recording makes it non-secret, but doesn't mean that anyone consented).
Of course, once you ask for consent it's not secret anymore I suppose...
The point here is that the guy was pointing the phone right at the cops, and the cops are arguing that's not sufficient to tell that he's recording.
police should not see one penny of traffic ticket revenue, and neither should cities
You're absolutely right. Letting towns set the speed limit, manage the cops and collect the fines creates a perverse incentive. It's easy to find towns that will instruct their cops to start issuing more tickets so that they can make the budget. The law is supposed to be about justice, not revenue.
I typically just mark misdirected messages as spam. I didn't request the message (so it's unsolicited), and it's the sender's duty to get the address correct, I'm certainly not going to put time or thought into fixing it.
I once got an e-mail from Dell that gave me a login to someone else's account, including their name, address and various other bits of information. I called them to fix that. I also got an e-mail from classmates thanking me for opening a new account, I closed the account.
Bottom line - if someone's signing up for a service, they better get the address correct, and online services should ALWAYS verify the address (by sending a message to it that contains a link) BEFORE finishing account creation.
Except:
Company A sells fertile seeds that produce X food on good land (which costs $Y per year to own, till, and harvest). The seeds cost $Y/20.
Company B sells infertile GMO seeds that produce 7X food on good land. The seeds cost $Y/10.
Company C sells infertile hybrid seeds that produce 5X food on good land. The seeds cost $Y/15. (Note that many foodstuffs were grown from such hybrid seeds before the introduction of GMO seeds).
In other words, the fixed cost of the land far outstrips the costs of the seeds. When you take into account the natural organization limit for a 'family' farm in terms of amount of land tended, and the reduced pest and disease control costs with GMO plants as opposed to the other two, GMO seeds end up winning in a free market, assuming the GMO produce sells for the same price as non-GMO produce.
Remember that keeping seeds also requires the farmer to actually retrieve and store the seeds. There was some use of fertile seeds in the early-to-mid 20th century, but infertile hybrids were common, since they tended to produce larger yields through hybrid vigor.
I would actually prefer to see the use of non-GMO plants, but I think the best way to accomplish this is to ban the patenting of genes, and remove any other "IP" protection from GMO plants. The market would quickly dry up.
I thought 3.0 was the version that would be written in a special message-passing version of Visual Basic... leading to his commitment to an asylum.
Tell you what, we New Yorkers will make you a deal:
We'll take care of the 9/11 workers.
You give us back the $20 billion in taxes that we pay to the feds each year and don't get back.
If the Federal government gets to tax us and give that money to other states, and require us to get passports in order to go to Canada (thus depressing trade and tourism), then we get a few bucks back when our public workers suffer major health problems as a result of an attack carried out by a terrorist organization which received training and funding from the federal government.
Sounds like you have a DVD that used "anamorphic widescreen" - where the video really 4:3 recorded from 16:9, and they used an analog filter to squish the image horizontally. I noticed my PS3 sometimes couldn't detect that unless I manually forced the aspect ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
"That copyright permits them to use the image for non-commercial purposes."
False. Copyright gives them *full* rights to the work. If they want to sell them (maybe you'll be famous 20 years from now, maybe they'll sell it for use as clip art) they can do so without your consent. If they just want it for non-commercial and portfolio uses, I'll happily license it *to them* for that purpose. Otherwise, I hired them and it's work-for-hire. If they don't want the job I'll give it to someone else.
I'm a liberal who voted for Obama and I agree with this statement. Good to know both sides can agree on certain things.
"Your own CA" won't be trusted by browsers. SSL is intended to verify that when you create a connection to 'hotmail.com' the machine on the other end is in fact hotmail.com. Merely encrypting the connection does nothing if I can pretend to be hotmail.com and record your username/password.
The problem is that the browsers trust CAs which are unscrupulous.
In this case the claim is that access to information about Satanism is causing people to become possessed. Most sane people who read the article will probably gloss over that as the mutterings of a raving loon, but they actually believe it. It's equivalent to claiming that reading a book will cause you to go insane, and making a claim like that is, well, crazy.
This could be combined with DNSSEC, just list the hashes in DNS. That way both DNS and the key itself have to be compromised.
Wikipedia seems to put it succinctly:
In 1992, Congress passed a law making it a federal crime to use a weapon to steal a motor vehicle that's been shipped through interstate commerce "through force or violence or intimidation."
The same way they made carjacking a federal offense - since the car is shipped over state lines they figure it belongs to them.
I don't even understand why the feds need to raise taxes to maintain roads. The states already tax fuel and maintain roads, if they need more money let them raise the revenue. Let the states maintain the sections of interstate roads that pass through them. The only reason the federal government creates taxes like this is so that they can hold the money hostage to force states to pass laws in areas the federal government has no authority over.
Eliminate the federal road tax.
Just like declaring it incompatible makes it so. The Firefox add-on compatibility scheme leaves much to be desired. I remembering maintaining an add-on that worked fine on Firefox 2+ (including the Firefox 4 alphas) but each time Mozilla released a new version we had to update the XML to add the latest version.