They should lower the interest they pay out to customers. They then should create free insurance up to $50k in damages to any person who loses their money through phishing. Although the crooks win until caught, this provides a safety net. Although smart people don't get all the interest they earn, everyone, smart or ignorant, will be ensured that they will never be so devastatingly hurt.
That's silly, we all know that few owners would help local t.v. coverage. Just like having fewer political parties helps the people. Imagine if we had one person own all the news networks. That would be like having one political party, and we all know how easy it is to vote when we have no choices. We just listen to what they say and blindly believe everything they say.
I'm not a DVR owner, but here's my opinion as a consumer nonetheless.
It would be better if they changed the format so when trying to fast-forward through a section, a reasonably-sized banner would appear on the screen (lower lefthand corner) showing what they choose. So in other words, as the screen normally fast-forwards, there'd be a normal play speed banner showing whatever the other-signal says to play. (So fast-forwarding through the actual t.v. show could be used to show a banner on the bottom left showing the t.v. show at normal speed until fast-forwarding is done.)
1: A domain registrar sells domains for $9.99/year. The business has promotional codes going all the time allow for a $1 discount per year. However, they only release the promotional code to someone who does a podcast, which just happens to have a vested interest in that company, the registar, anyways. Since deaf people cannot listen to podcasts, and if the podcaster doesn't release a text transcript, could they get in trouble in such a situation?
2: To register for a certain service, a user has to fill out a captcha to prove he or she is not a robot. However, that person happens to be dyslexic, and is completely uncapable of reading it correctly. Also, an audio captcha may be out of the question if the person has to be deaf.
He did something deceptive, and he violates people's rights. Despite the fact I think it's criminal in Washington state, he's going to be liable for civil damages (in my opinion).
Think of it this way. Let us say someone creates a fake business online. This fake business has the only purpose of collecting personal information as people enter it while waiting for it to open, but it never does. Perhaps a fake contest online too. If it's deceptive, they're probably going to be liable, but that's my opinion.
By the way, on a totally unrelated note, is GMail finally open to the public now? If so, why haven't I received my e-mail notifying me that it's been open or been invited? It's been 1-2 years, hasn't it? I don't think I overlooked the e-mail.
The simple fact he posted personal information like that will be his undoing. It being a prank or experiment is one thing, but when he violated people's privacy, he went too far. He could have somehow censored a lot of the stuff he was sent, still proving that he received the material though.
There's one thing though. If he's a heterosexual male, you have to feel sorry for the fact he saw the genitalia of other men.
As for those (stupid) people who gave out their personal information, at least their doing one thing good. Proving that it's a bad idea to give out such personal information. Always be cautious.
Does craigslist have any sort of policy against what has happened? Didn't any of the men put any disclaimer in the e-mails they sent to not share out their personal information? (I know when I contact certain sites, I ask not to be added to any mailing list inside the message, but of course, that's a different thing entirely.)
That brings up a good point. What about those places where the transgendered/crossdressing population is significant?
Some other comments I just thought of that I'm going to group in this reply.
Real-life businesses may legally be required to have wheelchair ramps for example, and that is justified by the fact that to not have one completely denies their ability to get in. However, an online business which website isn't blind-person friendly doesn't deny the blind person from getting aid from someone else in helping with the shopping experience, correct? To go even further, what about business websites not in English? What about business websites that have contests which require someone to unravel clues that are graphic oriented?
Putting up a sign saying, "Whites Only" would be totally different. When that happens, the business owner is denying someone to enter when they are completely capable.
Online businesses should be able to design their sites as they please without being forced to fit a standard they don't wish to choose. What's next? GoDaddy.com being sued by dyslexics because their captchas are too hard?
Error, locker not found. Please hit anyket to continue.
I hope I don't get modded down for that joke.
On another note, I have this to say. I hope all the technology doesn't add stress to the students' lives. The key issue should be learning. You can have all the high tech stuff you want, but it's nothing without well-learned teachers to explain things.
There is the overall Universe which would be a blank slate of neutralness. Galaxies, supercluters, whatever, would be the things to come into creation, but not from each other. I'm saying, isn't it possible that a bunch of big bangs happened to form our galaxies (or maybe something bigger than galaxies)?
Imagine having a pot of water. Bring that water to a boil. Bubbles start forming. Each bubble would represent a cluster, galaxy, whatever it might be. Then other bubbles start forming seconds later, and so on.
Maybe there are mini-big bangs going on. Maybe there wasn't one large one. Maybe, just maybe, there are bangs in the void of space which create our galaxies. Then, this would simply explain where our radiation comes from, the galaxies themselves, always radiating.
(I'm sleepy. I hope I didn't mess that up too badly with poor grammar.)
I never realized that before. Well, that certainly explains why I kept constantly hearing the alarm go off at a Target. No one seemed to check. Just person after person went through the doors, and every now and then, alarm.
I do not oppose RFID chips if they are used correctly.
As long as the chip information is purged from their system once the return policy has been passed (like 90 day returns, whatever the store's policy), that's fine. They don't need to keep information in their system passed that.
Maybe we need legislation introduced to make it illegal for any store to retain RFID-based information for more than 3 months once an item has been purchased.
Then I take it you never tried doing something like... changing the video card in your computer with the power running while soaking your feet in a pool of water.
There is common law. Someone can do an action that although not illegal, they can end up losing in civil court. If murder weren't illegal, people could still go to court and sue the suspected murderer. Financial penalties aren't powerful enough to prevent such. That's why it's good that we have incarceration.
The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children. However, I believe common law would apply in such places. A court has the right to determine who would be better suited for the child if I'm not mistaken in custody battles. Biological rights is a different issue.
Concerning same-sex marriage, if I may, the First Amendment should protect it if it's performed in a church, but I don't think any court has tried making this point. I mean, why would they anyways? The courts seem to be getting politically polarized.
Legislators need to be held liable for those unconstitutional laws passed. I believe this one will be declared unconstitutional. What the problem is-is that they are just going to end up creating other unconstitutional laws, but make it harder to declare such. Maybe there needs to be a constitutional law (at the state level) making it so any legislator passing an unconstitutional law will forego his legislator pension pay.
(Sometimes the People, like in Washington state, pass unconstitutional laws, such as I-872.)
Don't worry, it is unconstitional and will be declared such in due time. I'm not an expert on law, but I do know this is a direct violation and someone will challenge it, and a federal judge will overturn it.
Someone cannot be labeled something without being convicted. It sounds like some people just got angry at the system and decided to make a stupid law to appease themselves.
Remember folks, microwave your unmentionables before throwing them out in the trash. While you're at it, buy a new microwave and save the old one for this type of purpose. I figure 30 seconds in the microwave will make sure the RFID chip cannot be read.
Slashdot Mirror
They should lower the interest they pay out to customers. They then should create free insurance up to $50k in damages to any person who loses their money through phishing. Although the crooks win until caught, this provides a safety net. Although smart people don't get all the interest they earn, everyone, smart or ignorant, will be ensured that they will never be so devastatingly hurt.
That's silly, we all know that few owners would help local t.v. coverage. Just like having fewer political parties helps the people. Imagine if we had one person own all the news networks. That would be like having one political party, and we all know how easy it is to vote when we have no choices. We just listen to what they say and blindly believe everything they say.
I'm not a DVR owner, but here's my opinion as a consumer nonetheless.
It would be better if they changed the format so when trying to fast-forward through a section, a reasonably-sized banner would appear on the screen (lower lefthand corner) showing what they choose. So in other words, as the screen normally fast-forwards, there'd be a normal play speed banner showing whatever the other-signal says to play. (So fast-forwarding through the actual t.v. show could be used to show a banner on the bottom left showing the t.v. show at normal speed until fast-forwarding is done.)
Let me bring up some hypotheticals.
1: A domain registrar sells domains for $9.99/year. The business has promotional codes going all the time allow for a $1 discount per year. However, they only release the promotional code to someone who does a podcast, which just happens to have a vested interest in that company, the registar, anyways. Since deaf people cannot listen to podcasts, and if the podcaster doesn't release a text transcript, could they get in trouble in such a situation?
2: To register for a certain service, a user has to fill out a captcha to prove he or she is not a robot. However, that person happens to be dyslexic, and is completely uncapable of reading it correctly. Also, an audio captcha may be out of the question if the person has to be deaf.
It was meant to be more humourous.
Was the law ever intended for this though?
I already have a GMail account from being invited from someone I trust.
He did something deceptive, and he violates people's rights. Despite the fact I think it's criminal in Washington state, he's going to be liable for civil damages (in my opinion).
Think of it this way. Let us say someone creates a fake business online. This fake business has the only purpose of collecting personal information as people enter it while waiting for it to open, but it never does. Perhaps a fake contest online too. If it's deceptive, they're probably going to be liable, but that's my opinion.
By the way, on a totally unrelated note, is GMail finally open to the public now? If so, why haven't I received my e-mail notifying me that it's been open or been invited? It's been 1-2 years, hasn't it? I don't think I overlooked the e-mail.
The simple fact he posted personal information like that will be his undoing. It being a prank or experiment is one thing, but when he violated people's privacy, he went too far. He could have somehow censored a lot of the stuff he was sent, still proving that he received the material though.
There's one thing though. If he's a heterosexual male, you have to feel sorry for the fact he saw the genitalia of other men.
As for those (stupid) people who gave out their personal information, at least their doing one thing good. Proving that it's a bad idea to give out such personal information. Always be cautious.
Does craigslist have any sort of policy against what has happened? Didn't any of the men put any disclaimer in the e-mails they sent to not share out their personal information? (I know when I contact certain sites, I ask not to be added to any mailing list inside the message, but of course, that's a different thing entirely.)
That brings up a good point. What about those places where the transgendered/crossdressing population is significant?
Some other comments I just thought of that I'm going to group in this reply.
Real-life businesses may legally be required to have wheelchair ramps for example, and that is justified by the fact that to not have one completely denies their ability to get in. However, an online business which website isn't blind-person friendly doesn't deny the blind person from getting aid from someone else in helping with the shopping experience, correct? To go even further, what about business websites not in English? What about business websites that have contests which require someone to unravel clues that are graphic oriented?
Putting up a sign saying, "Whites Only" would be totally different. When that happens, the business owner is denying someone to enter when they are completely capable.
Online businesses should be able to design their sites as they please without being forced to fit a standard they don't wish to choose. What's next? GoDaddy.com being sued by dyslexics because their captchas are too hard?
I would think what this judge did violates the 1st Amendment.
Error, locker not found. Please hit anyket to continue.
I hope I don't get modded down for that joke.
On another note, I have this to say. I hope all the technology doesn't add stress to the students' lives. The key issue should be learning. You can have all the high tech stuff you want, but it's nothing without well-learned teachers to explain things.
(I'm kind of wondering why I was moderated down.)
There is the overall Universe which would be a blank slate of neutralness. Galaxies, supercluters, whatever, would be the things to come into creation, but not from each other. I'm saying, isn't it possible that a bunch of big bangs happened to form our galaxies (or maybe something bigger than galaxies)?
Imagine having a pot of water. Bring that water to a boil. Bubbles start forming. Each bubble would represent a cluster, galaxy, whatever it might be. Then other bubbles start forming seconds later, and so on.
Maybe there are mini-big bangs going on. Maybe there wasn't one large one. Maybe, just maybe, there are bangs in the void of space which create our galaxies. Then, this would simply explain where our radiation comes from, the galaxies themselves, always radiating.
(I'm sleepy. I hope I didn't mess that up too badly with poor grammar.)
I never realized that before. Well, that certainly explains why I kept constantly hearing the alarm go off at a Target. No one seemed to check. Just person after person went through the doors, and every now and then, alarm.
I do not oppose RFID chips if they are used correctly.
As long as the chip information is purged from their system once the return policy has been passed (like 90 day returns, whatever the store's policy), that's fine. They don't need to keep information in their system passed that.
Maybe we need legislation introduced to make it illegal for any store to retain RFID-based information for more than 3 months once an item has been purchased.
Then I take it you never tried doing something like... changing the video card in your computer with the power running while soaking your feet in a pool of water.
You took what I said out of context.
AriaStar said, "For one, fathers are guaranteed the right to their children,"
I replied, "The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children. However, I believe common law would apply in such places."
There is common law. Someone can do an action that although not illegal, they can end up losing in civil court. If murder weren't illegal, people could still go to court and sue the suspected murderer. Financial penalties aren't powerful enough to prevent such. That's why it's good that we have incarceration.
The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children. However, I believe common law would apply in such places. A court has the right to determine who would be better suited for the child if I'm not mistaken in custody battles. Biological rights is a different issue.
Concerning same-sex marriage, if I may, the First Amendment should protect it if it's performed in a church, but I don't think any court has tried making this point. I mean, why would they anyways? The courts seem to be getting politically polarized.
Legislators need to be held liable for those unconstitutional laws passed. I believe this one will be declared unconstitutional. What the problem is-is that they are just going to end up creating other unconstitutional laws, but make it harder to declare such. Maybe there needs to be a constitutional law (at the state level) making it so any legislator passing an unconstitutional law will forego his legislator pension pay.
(Sometimes the People, like in Washington state, pass unconstitutional laws, such as I-872.)
Don't worry, it is unconstitional and will be declared such in due time. I'm not an expert on law, but I do know this is a direct violation and someone will challenge it, and a federal judge will overturn it.
Someone cannot be labeled something without being convicted. It sounds like some people just got angry at the system and decided to make a stupid law to appease themselves.
Does that mean no more microwaving any cans of soda pop if it contains an RFID microchip?
Remember folks, microwave your unmentionables before throwing them out in the trash. While you're at it, buy a new microwave and save the old one for this type of purpose. I figure 30 seconds in the microwave will make sure the RFID chip cannot be read.
Has there been a Supreme Court ruling regarding that we can look at?