And not only that, but Alex Payne has a hidden agenda: he is trying to push Scala to boost interest in the book about Scala he just wrote!
HAHAHA. OMG. Were you actually serious when you said that with a straight face, posting a rebuttal by a guy with links to HIS RAILS BOOKS in the sidebar of said rebuttal?
Regardless of the merits of either argument, that's pretty fucking laughable, don't you think?
It's a good point. I'm fairly sure I'd be on solid ground if I stated that the first ICBM launch attempt of either the Russians or the US "failed" too.
You do realize that the edits don't go into the RAW file, right? (Actually, no, you fairly unequivocally do not.) They get held in a sidecar file, usually XMP. You can convert to DNG which can embed certain edits, but the whole point of the RAW file is that it remains unblemished, whatever edits you do to "it".
Now, there are modules for cameras - Canon makes a forensic module - that guarantees that the image you saw is untouched from what the camera sensor saw, but that is neither here nor there.
The point is that having a RAW image with your camera's serial number embedded into it will likely go a long way to substantiating your case. This is a civil matter. "Balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, if this guy has images that are uncropped, then to me, that'd do a great deal to seal his case (remember in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, and 'the margins' of a painting being used to determine issues of forgery (since the margins are hidden by the frame, a forgery that has the margins painted correctly must have seen the original at some point. If you can show that the work on the site is but a cropped version of an image you have, then that helps.
What crap. The spin on this story is outrageous. What is described in the article as "alleged fraud" is taken by the Slashdot submitter as "ZOMG, FBI is raiding people because they didn't pay their AT&T bill".
TFA mentions Verizon going to the FBI months ago, believing it had discovered a plan to defraud the telcos out of fees (i.e. illegal access to and use of the telephone network, hence the FBI involvement).
And it had nothing to do with being the 'correct' drive, either, just the 'same' drive. The problem was certain models responding one way, others responding differently.
'Text' as in SMS are a totally different protocol and require totally different handling by the provider from 'web' data bits, so it's understandable it would be priced separately.
Once upon a time. SMS over a GSM bearer, yes. Most phones these days, most provider settings, in the days of ubiquitous EDGE and 3G networks will use SMS over a GPRS bearer, which is essentially data in the sense that you might consume TCP/IP.
But then again, I think that one doesn't have the beta tag anymore.
I hope that doesn't mean you think you're running a later and greater version. More likely someone in marketing realized when having paid accounts, it probably wasn't wise to show a beta logo.
So here is the link to the original story at the news source. See if it provides any hints. I'll provide a pointer in the general direction: www.infoworld.com/article/09/04/01/13NF-microsoft-April-Fools_1.html.
It wasn't unauthorized. He charged the account WHILE THE ACCOUNT WAS OPEN. It doesn't become "unauthorized" because at a date later on, he canceled his card prior to reconciliation being complete.
By your definition, it's your perfect right to find a merchant who you know batches transactions, charge a nice big ticket purchase to your card, run home, call bank, cancel card, and then because the batch is reconciled later, scream "UNAUTHORIZED!". I think not.
It is VERY DIFFERENT from your second example, which IS unauthorized. In this case, the gas station would have placed a pre-auth on his card for the gas sale, and then reconciled it with an auth later. HE pre-authorized the card charge by using it in the transaction. It wasn't a later transaction that he didn't authorize, it was the same one.
Your account was OPEN at the time you made the charges. Why should transactions be retroactively declined because you CHOSE to close the account at a later date? Remember that credit card slip? You know, the one that says "I agree to pay this account as per my merchant agreement" or words to that effect. You know, the one you signed that said you'd honor your contractual obligations for your credit card that says explicitly that they are allowed to reopen the account to reconcile such transactions?
That being said, NSFing your account as a result is a bit harsh.
(and I don't think I should have to pay $10+ just for the SIM card, as I did when I got it from T-Mobile)
Just how much do you think you should have to pay for such a device? Cellphones are far from the only "subscription" service with a "registration fee" or equivalent.
Re:Used car salesmen use the same thing
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Apparently you are unaware of the concept of a loan. When you buy a car, do you have the title and registration? When you buy a house, and have a mortgage, you have the deed, not the bank.
Sure the bank or lender makes you sign a contract guaranteeing them the right to repossess the object if you fail to honor the payment agreement, but pretty key in that sentence is the word REpossess. They pass possession to you. Now it may also be that the property is the security on the loan, but again, security is a pretty specific concept in law. If the lender owns your property, they can sell it or dispose of it at any time, apropos of anything else. They don't. They retain the contractual right to reposess, claim or lien the security until you satisfy your debt. That is not the same thing.
Whereas, of course, Safari, Quicktime, iTunes on the Windows platform fully adhere to Microsoft's approach and standards and guidelines as documented in MSDN. What's your point?
That I'll definitely grant you, especially with USCIS.:) Don't even start me on the fact that full biometrics are taken for the Conditional PR, and again two years later for PR (and, unsurprisingly, you're charged for each).
example: for a green card you must have land line to your home, period. The area code must match the land location. If not it is invalid.
Huh? What? No, that's not true.
My wife and I have only cell phones. I got my conditional permanent residency a couple of years ago, and removed conditions a couple of months ago - I was asked if I had a landline. "No, just cell". "Alright, not a problem".
Server admins have always wanted to know exactly why. Is it mostly because Apple's trying to make money, or are there a good technical reasons why one must pay 4x the consumer-market rate for disks?
AFAIK, this is the first time anyone has managed to pry this level of detail out of Apple on the subject.
And the answer is, astoundingly, "Apple is trying to make money".
Seriously. "Because it has SMART, which we describe as 'hardware that monitors the drive'", "because we use rubber grummets for vibrations. Not boring rubber grommets that come with Seagate drives, but/special/ rubber grommets for our/special/ Seagate drives", etc, et al.
True, true. Though I'm having all sorts of fun getting RHEL to behave itself on the Core i7 system I bought this weekend. Not sure if it's the Realtek onboard NICs, or such, but gah. And don't even start me on the dual FW800 PCI-E card...
So by that metric, Apple will probably want in the order of $100,000 for their offering, given their attitudes towards RAM pricing. Of course, the Apple faithful will still defend it as being "higher quality", "but it's fully buffered and ECC", but yet recommending despite these details, "that no-one who knows/anything/ buys their RAM from Apple".
The only unfair part of the photo process is that the camera can't tell who is behind the wheel of the car.
What's unfair about that? The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle. In every jurisdiction I've lived in, the ticket has also come with information stating "if you were not driving the vehicle, supply us with the identity of the driver", and the ticket is sent to them. If you can't remember, or don't know who was driving your vehicle, then why shouldn't responsibility fall to you - it's typically good practice to at least have a mental idea of the person you let drive a vehicle in your name? And while you could say it's not your responsibility to identify the driver, you don't have to, but you do have to wear the result of refusing to. It is a "reasonable" assumption in a court of law that if you did not nominate a driver, you are the driver, but feel free to see how the judge responds to "I wasn't driving, but I'm not telling you who was, figure it out yourself".
(This excludes cases like joyriding and theft, but one would assume you'd be aware of that - neither of those tends to result in the car being returned to its starting position, unscathed, and you being unawares).
Slashdot Mirror
HAHAHA. OMG. Were you actually serious when you said that with a straight face, posting a rebuttal by a guy with links to HIS RAILS BOOKS in the sidebar of said rebuttal?
Regardless of the merits of either argument, that's pretty fucking laughable, don't you think?
It's a good point. I'm fairly sure I'd be on solid ground if I stated that the first ICBM launch attempt of either the Russians or the US "failed" too.
Now, there are modules for cameras - Canon makes a forensic module - that guarantees that the image you saw is untouched from what the camera sensor saw, but that is neither here nor there.
The point is that having a RAW image with your camera's serial number embedded into it will likely go a long way to substantiating your case. This is a civil matter. "Balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, if this guy has images that are uncropped, then to me, that'd do a great deal to seal his case (remember in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, and 'the margins' of a painting being used to determine issues of forgery (since the margins are hidden by the frame, a forgery that has the margins painted correctly must have seen the original at some point. If you can show that the work on the site is but a cropped version of an image you have, then that helps.
TFA mentions Verizon going to the FBI months ago, believing it had discovered a plan to defraud the telcos out of fees (i.e. illegal access to and use of the telephone network, hence the FBI involvement).
Seriously, it's days like this I hate Slashdot.
And it had nothing to do with being the 'correct' drive, either, just the 'same' drive. The problem was certain models responding one way, others responding differently.
LOL. My first thought was 'big deal, my Amiga did that more than five years before'. :)
Once upon a time. SMS over a GSM bearer, yes. Most phones these days, most provider settings, in the days of ubiquitous EDGE and 3G networks will use SMS over a GPRS bearer, which is essentially data in the sense that you might consume TCP/IP.
I hope that doesn't mean you think you're running a later and greater version. More likely someone in marketing realized when having paid accounts, it probably wasn't wise to show a beta logo.
if user.paid == TRUE { app.header.logoimage = "/logo-non-beta.gif"; } else { app.header.logoimage = "/logo-beta.gif"; }
What, you mean, like those customers that ARE paying them for the beta service?
Did you catch it?
Uhh, you realize that all April Fool's Jokes are meant to be done by 12PM on April 1?
By your definition, it's your perfect right to find a merchant who you know batches transactions, charge a nice big ticket purchase to your card, run home, call bank, cancel card, and then because the batch is reconciled later, scream "UNAUTHORIZED!". I think not.
It is VERY DIFFERENT from your second example, which IS unauthorized. In this case, the gas station would have placed a pre-auth on his card for the gas sale, and then reconciled it with an auth later. HE pre-authorized the card charge by using it in the transaction. It wasn't a later transaction that he didn't authorize, it was the same one.
That being said, NSFing your account as a result is a bit harsh.
Just how much do you think you should have to pay for such a device? Cellphones are far from the only "subscription" service with a "registration fee" or equivalent.
Sure the bank or lender makes you sign a contract guaranteeing them the right to repossess the object if you fail to honor the payment agreement, but pretty key in that sentence is the word REpossess. They pass possession to you. Now it may also be that the property is the security on the loan, but again, security is a pretty specific concept in law. If the lender owns your property, they can sell it or dispose of it at any time, apropos of anything else. They don't. They retain the contractual right to reposess, claim or lien the security until you satisfy your debt. That is not the same thing.
Whereas, of course, Safari, Quicktime, iTunes on the Windows platform fully adhere to Microsoft's approach and standards and guidelines as documented in MSDN. What's your point?
That I'll definitely grant you, especially with USCIS. :) Don't even start me on the fact that full biometrics are taken for the Conditional PR, and again two years later for PR (and, unsurprisingly, you're charged for each).
Said reason does not have to make sense, does not have to be agreed with, etc, et al.
Huh? What? No, that's not true.
My wife and I have only cell phones. I got my conditional permanent residency a couple of years ago, and removed conditions a couple of months ago - I was asked if I had a landline. "No, just cell". "Alright, not a problem".
Bah.
Because the article was a piss-poor attempt to justify the ridiculous mark-up on Apple "server grade" equipment?
And the answer is, astoundingly, "Apple is trying to make money".
Seriously. "Because it has SMART, which we describe as 'hardware that monitors the drive'", "because we use rubber grummets for vibrations. Not boring rubber grommets that come with Seagate drives, but /special/ rubber grommets for our /special/ Seagate drives", etc, et al.
True, true. Though I'm having all sorts of fun getting RHEL to behave itself on the Core i7 system I bought this weekend. Not sure if it's the Realtek onboard NICs, or such, but gah. And don't even start me on the dual FW800 PCI-E card...
Dell has sold memory risers for a long time now for their PowerEdge servers, which have, funnily enough, 8 slots on each riser.
So by that metric, Apple will probably want in the order of $100,000 for their offering, given their attitudes towards RAM pricing. Of course, the Apple faithful will still defend it as being "higher quality", "but it's fully buffered and ECC", but yet recommending despite these details, "that no-one who knows /anything/ buys their RAM from Apple".
What's unfair about that? The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle. In every jurisdiction I've lived in, the ticket has also come with information stating "if you were not driving the vehicle, supply us with the identity of the driver", and the ticket is sent to them. If you can't remember, or don't know who was driving your vehicle, then why shouldn't responsibility fall to you - it's typically good practice to at least have a mental idea of the person you let drive a vehicle in your name? And while you could say it's not your responsibility to identify the driver, you don't have to, but you do have to wear the result of refusing to. It is a "reasonable" assumption in a court of law that if you did not nominate a driver, you are the driver, but feel free to see how the judge responds to "I wasn't driving, but I'm not telling you who was, figure it out yourself".
(This excludes cases like joyriding and theft, but one would assume you'd be aware of that - neither of those tends to result in the car being returned to its starting position, unscathed, and you being unawares).