I've always felt that the score from an IQ test was actually the real test. Reason being is that some people get a big score, think they're all that and a bag of chips, and let life beat them into the ground because they thought success was predestined. Other people get a low score, think they are stupid, and let life beat them into the ground because they thought failure was predestined. The most successful people, in my experience, see the score from an IQ test, say, "hmm, that's interesting," and then continue to try to do their best at whatever it is they want to do with their lives.
In other words, I feel that IQ tests are largely curiosities that are frequently harmful and only rarely actually useful.
Lets not even get started on the blatant testing demographic bias (target vs actual demographic/etc) that makes the scores skewed against people based on background.
You are confusing "internet companies provide IM clients which bill as SMS if you use them" with "companies monitor traffic to . .."
if you get your new non-smartphone with its included AIM application and send messages with that, it will likely bill those as a SMS message. That is entirely a different thing.
I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.
The fact of the matter is that social engineering is far simpler than hacking in almost all circumstances. And people are ***EXCEEDINGLY*** careless with their mobile phones. How many people don't have their PC, which sits in their locked house, remember forms data/passwords, but have a stupid app on their phone that shoots straight to all of their email accounts without so much as a password?
Power users will be power users, but for generalized security laws, the user is their own worst enemy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably even more vulnerable. It's similar to the old adage: "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- if someone is so sure of themselves that they feel they are immune to social engineering methods for bypassing security, they are at even more risk.
If you were dealing with some local company or something, this might be ok to give them one more chance to 'make it right.' However, you are dealing with a big corp. The best thing to do, to avoid unforeseen consequences, is to call the fire marshal and inquire as to who is actually responsible if there is a situation like yours (the installer or the building owner). If it is the installer, then you immediately report the situation and get an official record of it on a government piece of paper. You then take that report and fax it to them while on the phone with their secretary and tell them they need to fix it, as the fire department has documented the faulty job and you aren't sure if they are being investigated . ..but you have confirmed with the fire marshal that they would be the ones found liable in case fault is found in the installation job.
Can I submit a formal request that demands my email provider not release any of my emails without being forced by warrant. If I can't stop voluntary compliance, then this is not very helpful anyway. In other words, we need the supreme court to rule that it is illegal for the host to disclose my emails without a warrant or this doesn't help in any meaningful way.
This is just like all those crap magazines you can buy to show you how to make millions in the stock market. There is always someone willing to look at a graph of past occurrences, draw a line through it, and show you the formula for what happened.
The trick being, of course, that they are all 100% worthless for predicting future trends. The only thing you know in the stock market is this: If a stock is going up, it can continue to go up. Or it might stay the same or go down. The only thing this guy will learn from his analysis is that there might be another terrorist attack. Or there might not. And it might be more, equal, or less severe than previous attacks.
Are these advertisements? I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm just wondering. I guess the legal definition of advertisement could be different than what I'm thinking an advertisement is, but I don't believe the faxes are selling anything.
While your interpretation is that the article is looking at the speed of Verizon's new service and then painting it in a negative light, my interpretation is that the article is about the pricing plans Verizon is introducing with their new technology and warning consumers that it's a bit like a booby trap. Take this:
"Verizon has priced LTE pretty much like 3G to encourage data sipping, not guzzling."
He is pointing out that although the service itself is vastly superior as far as speed, it is using identical benchmarks for pricing. As such, it is a warning to the consumer not to get caught unaware and be hit with a big bill. I, for one, appreciate that warning. It's the kind of thing I might not think to check when I go upgrade my smart phone to fast 4g service. I don't look at it as negative slanted journalism, but an article on how Verizon's pricing plans do not seem to be evolving at the same rate as their technology.
This is a basic tenant in all courts in America: If you initiate a crime, you are charged with ALL consequences that take place as a result of your crime.
Basically, it works like this:
If you do crime A which has results B and C, you will be charged with all results. If you commit burglary, and someone dies as a result of your burglary, it is your fault. And frankly, that's the way it should be.
As much as I hate to feed raging trolls, my comment was specifically regarding the "enhanced" pat downs. You know, the ones where they grab your balls, your wife's vagina and tits, your childrens' private places.
Enhanced is the key word there. The GOP certainly didn't score any points with the original machines and that fiasco, but you are delusional if you think the current administration didn't escalate it to the current proportions.
Once when moving out of an apartment, I had the manager come in on the day I moved out after the apartment was empty. She and I went through the whole apartment and did the evaluation for how much of my deposit I would be getting back. The end result was that I was going to get back all of my deposit minus the small fee for cleaning/whitewashing/whatever that happens.
Fast forward two months -- I get a call from a debt collector wanting me to pay money to the apartment complex. Well, being as I was expecting a check back from them, and this was the great state of California, my response was this:
"I am due a refund of X dollars from the apartment complex. I have this in writing and signed by the apartment manager. Their refund is now past due, as California state law allows the apartment complex only 30 days for the ex-tenant to receive their money. As such, if I do not have a check in my hand by the end of the week, I am contacting the CA housing authority as well as the sheriff and going after both of you for failure to pay, harassment, and fraud."
She apologized profusely, and in 3 days I had a check in my hand with the full amount owed to me. Woo-hoo!
It is frequently illegal to access unsecured wifi if you are not an authorized user. Google's collection of data off an unsecured wifi network constitutes unauthorized access. In many places, it is illegal.
THAT is a LARGE reason why Google should be held accountable for DATA that is floating in the middle of a PRIVATE NETWORK. The problem is GOOGLE decided that the LAW didn't APPLY to THEM.
Is there any amount of materials on the moon that would make it profitable for a company to build the capability to mine it and ship material back to earth? I'm not sure there is. Lets say you found a boulder of gold that weighed three tons. A solid nugget. What are the costs associated with recovering that nugget? Now, realizing that they won't find that, but instead ore and other materials that need processing, there are additional considerations: Do you pay for the shipping weight of ore, or do you pay to process the ore on the moon and ship the material? If you process it on the moon, how do you handle the additional maintenance and engineering requirements?
I didn't RTFA, but just seeing that valuable materials on the moon made me question how valuable ANYTHING is when you have to pay so much per unit of weight to retrieve it. Maybe Chuck Norris' cancer-curing tears, if they were found on the moon. But I can't think of much else.
What the article fails to mention is that in Europe, unlike the USA, you can buy nice things like the LG 47" LD950. This TV uses a polarized screen with polarization set up identically to movie screens. That means people don't buy glasses -- they just bring home glasses from when they see a 3d feature film instead of throwing them away/recycling. I don't know how much of a percentage of 3D tv sold in Europe is passive, but it is something to consider that not all 3D tv requires the purchase of $150 glasses-per-person.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use a debit card, you are much more at risk than credit. Debit cards move money, credit cards issue credit.
I never use debit cards or checks. Both of those leave you wide open. Use credit for everything
I've always felt that the score from an IQ test was actually the real test. Reason being is that some people get a big score, think they're all that and a bag of chips, and let life beat them into the ground because they thought success was predestined. Other people get a low score, think they are stupid, and let life beat them into the ground because they thought failure was predestined. The most successful people, in my experience, see the score from an IQ test, say, "hmm, that's interesting," and then continue to try to do their best at whatever it is they want to do with their lives.
In other words, I feel that IQ tests are largely curiosities that are frequently harmful and only rarely actually useful.
Lets not even get started on the blatant testing demographic bias (target vs actual demographic/etc) that makes the scores skewed against people based on background.
If someone's gonna get fucked, might as well enjoy it.
If people in the corporation commit a crime, they can be charged individually. Just so you know.
I know. He created commander keen, first, so that should have been the game they used.
You are confusing "internet companies provide IM clients which bill as SMS if you use them" with "companies monitor traffic to . . ."
if you get your new non-smartphone with its included AIM application and send messages with that, it will likely bill those as a SMS message. That is entirely a different thing.
At least that is my experience.
I dunno about a link, but he lost me at plexiglass. That stuff is sooooo static prone, I'd be terrified to anchor motherboards to it.
I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.
The fact of the matter is that social engineering is far simpler than hacking in almost all circumstances. And people are ***EXCEEDINGLY*** careless with their mobile phones. How many people don't have their PC, which sits in their locked house, remember forms data/passwords, but have a stupid app on their phone that shoots straight to all of their email accounts without so much as a password?
Power users will be power users, but for generalized security laws, the user is their own worst enemy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably even more vulnerable. It's similar to the old adage: "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- if someone is so sure of themselves that they feel they are immune to social engineering methods for bypassing security, they are at even more risk.
If you were dealing with some local company or something, this might be ok to give them one more chance to 'make it right.' However, you are dealing with a big corp. The best thing to do, to avoid unforeseen consequences, is to call the fire marshal and inquire as to who is actually responsible if there is a situation like yours (the installer or the building owner). If it is the installer, then you immediately report the situation and get an official record of it on a government piece of paper. You then take that report and fax it to them while on the phone with their secretary and tell them they need to fix it, as the fire department has documented the faulty job and you aren't sure if they are being investigated . . .but you have confirmed with the fire marshal that they would be the ones found liable in case fault is found in the installation job.
Can I submit a formal request that demands my email provider not release any of my emails without being forced by warrant. If I can't stop voluntary compliance, then this is not very helpful anyway. In other words, we need the supreme court to rule that it is illegal for the host to disclose my emails without a warrant or this doesn't help in any meaningful way.
This is just like all those crap magazines you can buy to show you how to make millions in the stock market. There is always someone willing to look at a graph of past occurrences, draw a line through it, and show you the formula for what happened.
The trick being, of course, that they are all 100% worthless for predicting future trends. The only thing you know in the stock market is this: If a stock is going up, it can continue to go up. Or it might stay the same or go down. The only thing this guy will learn from his analysis is that there might be another terrorist attack. Or there might not. And it might be more, equal, or less severe than previous attacks.
Are these advertisements? I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm just wondering. I guess the legal definition of advertisement could be different than what I'm thinking an advertisement is, but I don't believe the faxes are selling anything.
Level of Education Required
Federal Agent (FBI/CIA/etc) > Detective > Beat Cop > Prison Guard > TSA Agent
So yes, it is too hard for them to understand.
Mob rule is almost indistinguishable from oppressive tyranny. See French Revolution, et al.
While your interpretation is that the article is looking at the speed of Verizon's new service and then painting it in a negative light, my interpretation is that the article is about the pricing plans Verizon is introducing with their new technology and warning consumers that it's a bit like a booby trap. Take this:
"Verizon has priced LTE pretty much like 3G to encourage data sipping, not guzzling."
He is pointing out that although the service itself is vastly superior as far as speed, it is using identical benchmarks for pricing. As such, it is a warning to the consumer not to get caught unaware and be hit with a big bill. I, for one, appreciate that warning. It's the kind of thing I might not think to check when I go upgrade my smart phone to fast 4g service. I don't look at it as negative slanted journalism, but an article on how Verizon's pricing plans do not seem to be evolving at the same rate as their technology.
This is a basic tenant in all courts in America: If you initiate a crime, you are charged with ALL consequences that take place as a result of your crime.
Basically, it works like this:
If you do crime A which has results B and C, you will be charged with all results. If you commit burglary, and someone dies as a result of your burglary, it is your fault. And frankly, that's the way it should be.
As much as I hate to feed raging trolls, my comment was specifically regarding the "enhanced" pat downs. You know, the ones where they grab your balls, your wife's vagina and tits, your childrens' private places.
Enhanced is the key word there. The GOP certainly didn't score any points with the original machines and that fiasco, but you are delusional if you think the current administration didn't escalate it to the current proportions.
Once when moving out of an apartment, I had the manager come in on the day I moved out after the apartment was empty. She and I went through the whole apartment and did the evaluation for how much of my deposit I would be getting back. The end result was that I was going to get back all of my deposit minus the small fee for cleaning/whitewashing/whatever that happens.
Fast forward two months -- I get a call from a debt collector wanting me to pay money to the apartment complex. Well, being as I was expecting a check back from them, and this was the great state of California, my response was this:
"I am due a refund of X dollars from the apartment complex. I have this in writing and signed by the apartment manager. Their refund is now past due, as California state law allows the apartment complex only 30 days for the ex-tenant to receive their money. As such, if I do not have a check in my hand by the end of the week, I am contacting the CA housing authority as well as the sheriff and going after both of you for failure to pay, harassment, and fraud."
She apologized profusely, and in 3 days I had a check in my hand with the full amount owed to me. Woo-hoo!
Under whose administration did "enhanced" pat downs start?
It is frequently illegal to access unsecured wifi if you are not an authorized user. Google's collection of data off an unsecured wifi network constitutes unauthorized access. In many places, it is illegal.
THAT is a LARGE reason why Google should be held accountable for DATA that is floating in the middle of a PRIVATE NETWORK. The problem is GOOGLE decided that the LAW didn't APPLY to THEM.
Is there any amount of materials on the moon that would make it profitable for a company to build the capability to mine it and ship material back to earth? I'm not sure there is. Lets say you found a boulder of gold that weighed three tons. A solid nugget. What are the costs associated with recovering that nugget? Now, realizing that they won't find that, but instead ore and other materials that need processing, there are additional considerations: Do you pay for the shipping weight of ore, or do you pay to process the ore on the moon and ship the material? If you process it on the moon, how do you handle the additional maintenance and engineering requirements?
I didn't RTFA, but just seeing that valuable materials on the moon made me question how valuable ANYTHING is when you have to pay so much per unit of weight to retrieve it. Maybe Chuck Norris' cancer-curing tears, if they were found on the moon. But I can't think of much else.
In the movie, at least, they were organic beings. And there were lots of street vendors selling biotech this-and-that. Eyes, pets, etc.
It is also useful for Words with Friends. So that's browsing pictures, watching youtube, and words with friends.
Of the 3 people sitting next to me with ipads, I think words with friends is the dominant application used.
What the article fails to mention is that in Europe, unlike the USA, you can buy nice things like the LG 47" LD950. This TV uses a polarized screen with polarization set up identically to movie screens. That means people don't buy glasses -- they just bring home glasses from when they see a 3d feature film instead of throwing them away/recycling. I don't know how much of a percentage of 3D tv sold in Europe is passive, but it is something to consider that not all 3D tv requires the purchase of $150 glasses-per-person.
No, google is famous for building pieces of software to .8 or so, releasing them to beta, and then letting them die.
There are, of course, some notable exceptions. But I don't see very many google labs products get picked up once Google smurfs them.