Additionally, at least if the banks follow USAA's lead on this (USAA has been doing this for a long time now), the only customers who will be able to do this are the most trustworthy. That is those with a good account history with the bank, good credit etc.
Yes, but forged checks has always been a potential problem. If the routing numbers etc match up and the bank/customer doesn't dispute it it'll go through. That's the way checks have always worked. There's really not much more danger here than there has always been within the check system.
USAA customers have been able to do this with their mobile phones for quite a long time now. They've also been able to use scanners and software at home to do it for even longer (years).
It's not the customers fault that the ISP didn't design their network in such a way that someone using all the bandwidth that the ISP provides them causes problems.
Sure it is. It means they didn't select the service that meets their needs.
I think you misunderstand what I meant, I mean it's not the customers fualt that using all the bandwidth the ISP provides them causes problems for the ISP.
Sure if the customer has problems with their own connection when they fully saturate it that's their problem not the ISP's.
But it's certainly not the fault of the user that the ISP is giving them more bandwidth than the ISP can handle them using.
It's not the customers fault that the ISP didn't design their network in such a way that someone using all the bandwidth that the ISP provides them causes problems. If people uploading too much is a problem, then cut down their upload bandwidth, but don't just ban them.
Oh, and since you're going to be there for 2 weeks consider taking the train up to Edinburgh in Scotland. The train-ride will take all day, but you get to see a pretty big cross section of England and Scotland, and Edinburgh is one of my favorite cities in the world. Plus if you're a golfer you can make a pilgrimage to St. Andrews (a town I love in it's own right. I spent a semester there in college) with a rather short train ride from Edinburgh.
Not sure if anyone else has suggested it (probably but just in case...) I would HIGHLY suggest going to visit the Cabinet War Rooms where Churchhill and his advisers planned WWII. It's pretty fascinating in general and if you're a history nerd at all it'll be doubly so. I've been there just about everytime I've been in london for any period of time and it never get's old. The last time I was there (back in 2003) they were in the midst of a major expansion of the areas that would be open to the public so it's probably bigger and more interesting now than it was when I was last there. It's not hugely well known but it's really really awesome (and at least everytime I was there not super crowded. There were still certainly people there, but it wasn't jam packed). Anyway that's my tourism suggestion to everyone who asks about cool things to see in London, since most of the other big attractions are more well known.
I don't recall too many news sites that stream the 6:00 news and many times I don't want to sit around and read news articles, because maybe I'm eating dinner, washing the dishes and can't scroll a webpage at the same time.
All very excellent points, and exactly the sort of things that people should be asking about with proposals like this.
Really I was just responding to the earlier Anonymous Coward who said: "Are all of you finished making up problems? When was the last time people suffocated because the oxygen level in skyscrapers without openable windows got too low? What, they actually live in there? Blimey! They must be using magic to ensure a constant supply of fresh air!"
Clearly there ARE problems to be considered. Perhaps they are all easily mitigated or aren't serious problems but it's not absurd for people to ask questions about them.
Oh absolutely, I'm that rare American who doesn't really like driving places if I can avoid it myself. And if the towns plan is to incorporate better public transport and other such things then obviously they HAVE considered the issue of combustion, and their solution is to minimize it. But it's still obviously an issue one should consider.
My point was really to an earlier poster who claimed that because people live in skyscrapers then obviously air pollution is a "made up problem" with this proposal.
True. I assume they have a separate ventilation system of some sort for most of those, but perhaps the large holes where people drive in and out are enough. I know I've been in some basement parking garages that go down several levels that did in fact smell pretty bad (from exhaust). I'd also point out most people don't drive very far in parking garages, just to and from a parking spot.
I'm not saying that this is a completely unworkable plan, just that combustion of various kinds is a factor that has to be considered. It's not absurd for people to point it out as a possible problem.
Yes, but assuming it's at all cared for, not for a very long time, and then it will only slowly release that carbon back into the air. Not to mention that when it dies you can plant more trees in it's place to "take up the slack."
You know, I agree that there are probably some "rights" that aren't in the constitution, and that perhaps we don't have the "right" to, but the 9th amendment was put into the constitution for a reason:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean we can't determine that we do in fact have a given right, and the founders certainly understood this, or they wouldn't have bothered to add that amendment.
Did "you" vote agaisnt that elected official? Did "you" work to campaign against that person? Did "you" campaign for another candidate? Did "you" do anything other than complain about Monsanto giving money to elected officials? If not, then yes they are "your" elected official.
I'd point out that the most widely distributed 4E pirate copies had printers watermarks on them, not watermarks associated with customers who legally bought them. This won't do anything to stop piracy.
They were able to sue these 8 people because they were stupid enough to share legally purchased PDF's, and they should be sued. But don't take away the option to buy legal PDF's from me because of a few idiots. The vast majority of PDF customers don't share their PDF's on P2P networks.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, at least if the banks follow USAA's lead on this (USAA has been doing this for a long time now), the only customers who will be able to do this are the most trustworthy. That is those with a good account history with the bank, good credit etc.
Yes, but forged checks has always been a potential problem. If the routing numbers etc match up and the bank/customer doesn't dispute it it'll go through. That's the way checks have always worked. There's really not much more danger here than there has always been within the check system.
USAA customers have been able to do this with their mobile phones for quite a long time now. They've also been able to use scanners and software at home to do it for even longer (years).
It's not the customers fault that the ISP didn't design their network in such a way that someone using all the bandwidth that the ISP provides them causes problems.
Sure it is. It means they didn't select the service that meets their needs.
I think you misunderstand what I meant, I mean it's not the customers fualt that using all the bandwidth the ISP provides them causes problems for the ISP.
Sure if the customer has problems with their own connection when they fully saturate it that's their problem not the ISP's.
But it's certainly not the fault of the user that the ISP is giving them more bandwidth than the ISP can handle them using.
My thoughts exactly.
It's not the customers fault that the ISP didn't design their network in such a way that someone using all the bandwidth that the ISP provides them causes problems. If people uploading too much is a problem, then cut down their upload bandwidth, but don't just ban them.
An excellent suggestion that I'd forgotten about! Stonehenge is worth seeing and Bath is a wonderful little place to visit!
I'm not sure this guy is the real douchbag here...
Oh, and since you're going to be there for 2 weeks consider taking the train up to Edinburgh in Scotland. The train-ride will take all day, but you get to see a pretty big cross section of England and Scotland, and Edinburgh is one of my favorite cities in the world. Plus if you're a golfer you can make a pilgrimage to St. Andrews (a town I love in it's own right. I spent a semester there in college) with a rather short train ride from Edinburgh.
Not sure if anyone else has suggested it (probably but just in case...) I would HIGHLY suggest going to visit the Cabinet War Rooms where Churchhill and his advisers planned WWII. It's pretty fascinating in general and if you're a history nerd at all it'll be doubly so. I've been there just about everytime I've been in london for any period of time and it never get's old. The last time I was there (back in 2003) they were in the midst of a major expansion of the areas that would be open to the public so it's probably bigger and more interesting now than it was when I was last there. It's not hugely well known but it's really really awesome (and at least everytime I was there not super crowded. There were still certainly people there, but it wasn't jam packed). Anyway that's my tourism suggestion to everyone who asks about cool things to see in London, since most of the other big attractions are more well known.
Oh I'd also suggest checking out Camden Town.
I don't recall too many news sites that stream the 6:00 news and many times I don't want to sit around and read news articles, because maybe I'm eating dinner, washing the dishes and can't scroll a webpage at the same time.
That's what your antenna is for!
All very excellent points, and exactly the sort of things that people should be asking about with proposals like this.
Really I was just responding to the earlier Anonymous Coward who said: "Are all of you finished making up problems? When was the last time people suffocated because the oxygen level in skyscrapers without openable windows got too low? What, they actually live in there? Blimey! They must be using magic to ensure a constant supply of fresh air!"
Clearly there ARE problems to be considered. Perhaps they are all easily mitigated or aren't serious problems but it's not absurd for people to ask questions about them.
Oh absolutely, I'm that rare American who doesn't really like driving places if I can avoid it myself. And if the towns plan is to incorporate better public transport and other such things then obviously they HAVE considered the issue of combustion, and their solution is to minimize it. But it's still obviously an issue one should consider.
My point was really to an earlier poster who claimed that because people live in skyscrapers then obviously air pollution is a "made up problem" with this proposal.
True. I assume they have a separate ventilation system of some sort for most of those, but perhaps the large holes where people drive in and out are enough. I know I've been in some basement parking garages that go down several levels that did in fact smell pretty bad (from exhaust). I'd also point out most people don't drive very far in parking garages, just to and from a parking spot.
I'm not saying that this is a completely unworkable plan, just that combustion of various kinds is a factor that has to be considered. It's not absurd for people to point it out as a possible problem.
But people aren't driving cars in Skyscrapers...
Does that mean we'll all be switching over to old Be Boxes? (As I recall the original ones had AT&T Hobbit processors for CPUs)
Of course Dungeon Masters were originally called "Judges..."
I'm pretty sure jailbreaking is perfectly legal already.
I was about to ask what we do with the leftover liquid CO2, this might just be a good answer (though would they be able to use that much that fast?)
Yes, but assuming it's at all cared for, not for a very long time, and then it will only slowly release that carbon back into the air. Not to mention that when it dies you can plant more trees in it's place to "take up the slack."
Who is "they"?
Oh I absolutely recognize that it's a vote. It's a vote to let others decide things for you.
You know, I agree that there are probably some "rights" that aren't in the constitution, and that perhaps we don't have the "right" to, but the 9th amendment was put into the constitution for a reason:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean we can't determine that we do in fact have a given right, and the founders certainly understood this, or they wouldn't have bothered to add that amendment.
Did "you" vote agaisnt that elected official? Did "you" work to campaign against that person? Did "you" campaign for another candidate? Did "you" do anything other than complain about Monsanto giving money to elected officials? If not, then yes they are "your" elected official.
I'd point out that the most widely distributed 4E pirate copies had printers watermarks on them, not watermarks associated with customers who legally bought them. This won't do anything to stop piracy.
They were able to sue these 8 people because they were stupid enough to share legally purchased PDF's, and they should be sued. But don't take away the option to buy legal PDF's from me because of a few idiots. The vast majority of PDF customers don't share their PDF's on P2P networks.