And why should I as a farmer be subject to restrictions on my crop because of an inherent failure in a system I wanted no part of? Should Monsanto be compensating for that? If not, why not? If not, why should they be claiming compensation. One without the other is utterly inequitable, and this is the issue.
Actually my employer prefers US citizens, then green card holders, then employees with existing temporary work visas/permits (in that order), because it simplifies the hiring process.
As an immigrant green card holder, I'm confused - with the sole exception of security clearanced jobs (and not necessarily even then), there is, or should be, zero difference between hiring a citizen and hiring a green card holder. But please enlighten me if I'm missing something...
Whilst you don't... the reasons for having it without owning or intending to own a car are unusual, but not impossible. You may be required to have an SR-22 (where you know that you are otherwise not going to be covered for insurance), but may regularly drive your partners car (for the same reason they might refuse coverage to you as an occasional driver). You may drive a company car and not want the company to know that (the ethics thereof are of course debatable).
However, in this case, what generally happens (and it's much more "required" for leased cars) is that your insurance from an existing vehicle will often provide transitional coverage. The dealer, or usually the credit provider, will often also provide this too ("Additional Insurer"). Failing all that, you will get the requisite details for purchasing insurance, and apply for it before the paperwork is signed (but at a point where you know the vehicle purchase/lease will not fall through).
It still is, but the burden of proof is significantly higher - you have to be either a witness to the actual commission of the crime, or have a reasonable awareness there of "a la Crimestoppers, police reports or the like", not "some guy on a forum said so"...
Tell us, Oh Wise Cowardly One, what were the police meant to do to prevent the theft of this car, "BEFORE THE FACT". When responding, frame your answer as something appropriate to those of us living here and now in the real world, not in Minority Report.
You own the Dish DVR they gave you? Really? How much did you pay for it? Where's your receipt for it? You pay a fee because you RENT the fucking thing. I'd love to see your argument when you cancel your service. "Oh no, I own the DVR, you can't have it back".
Guess what? BUY a TiVo, then, and enjoy the FEE then for using a DVR you ACTUALLY OWN.
Funny, my 722 DVR from Dish just works, "New Episodes", hit record when I find the program in the guide, ability to search the guide by genre, keywords, actors, etc... And it only costs $6 a month. I can see how I'm being shafted, true enough.
Wow, bias much. Patents are often disputable and subjective, especially "quite broad ones". The patent ties to functionality and implementation. So no UI changes means, frankly, not a lot.
"Quite obviously a lie", really? "Burden to prove"? Uhh, you're full of shit, AC. "Balance of probabilities". When did patent law become criminal?
I may be wrong, but I believe you can do HDCP over DVI without too much concern, presuming there's accurate and complete support in your firmware. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.
DISH WILL NOT have "to turn off DVR to most of its customers". Anyone using the 622 or 722 (what they ship now as their DVR offerings) is NOT affected. Software was upgraded months ago specifically to get around the patent. If you have a far older DVR, then all this means, is you'll get a free upgrade to the new model, rather than paying for it. A pain in the ass though the patent is, a travesty this is not.
Mmm, pimping your own misleading blog FTW! It's not like many people in the comments of his own blog entry he submitted didn't point out this RATHER MAJOR DISCREPANCY... but oh noes! Removing scaremongering does not help pageviews, does it?
Very, very true. Fund availability and check clearance are two different things. The former is a function of financial institution policy and your (or your account) standing with them, as to whether they'll make you wait, make all funds available immediately based on history, or funds up to $1,000, etc. Especially if it's an international check, clearance can take up to a month (usually up to a week domestically, a few days for the major institutions).
Exactly. Which is why they ask you to give them the money, hoping you'll be the one who'll sort the mess out - note that they won't give you any information that might lead you to try to recover your loss from the other party, oh no, that's confidential.
Right. And the email from a founder of 37S complaining "is not official"... here's a hint: If something motivates you enough to put a slide in a presentation saying "Fuck You", someone's gotten under your skin.
Oh, damn, that's priceless - your solution to traveling overseas, with a phone that is compatible with those systems is "Gouging on global roaming", or "Hey, just buy another phone for the trip"... We can't have users sullying the Holy Apple Experience(TM), can we?
What a joke, that would be close to the most pathetic defense of SIM locking I've ever heard. You're also aware that AT&T does not offer global roaming in every country, but again, who cares, "Buy another phone for THAT trip, too! Wee, phones for everybody!"
I don't think the US can claim any form of superiority there - I just moved to Washington from Australia, and I had more than my fair share of Americans who assumed that Melbourne to Sydney would be "about two hours" and Melbourne to Perth would be "a long day trip, probably overnight", driving. For reference: Melbourne to Sydney: 548mi. Melbourne to Perth: 2,132mi.
As opposed to the US?!? I just moved to the US from Australia and it took a while to process just how much real estate was devoted to highways and freeways in a "small" city (Tacoma, WA), and bigger, Seattle. I don't think the US has any claims at being better... different, but just as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should I as a farmer be subject to restrictions on my crop because of an inherent failure in a system I wanted no part of? Should Monsanto be compensating for that? If not, why not? If not, why should they be claiming compensation. One without the other is utterly inequitable, and this is the issue.
As an immigrant green card holder, I'm confused - with the sole exception of security clearanced jobs (and not necessarily even then), there is, or should be, zero difference between hiring a citizen and hiring a green card holder. But please enlighten me if I'm missing something...
However, in this case, what generally happens (and it's much more "required" for leased cars) is that your insurance from an existing vehicle will often provide transitional coverage. The dealer, or usually the credit provider, will often also provide this too ("Additional Insurer"). Failing all that, you will get the requisite details for purchasing insurance, and apply for it before the paperwork is signed (but at a point where you know the vehicle purchase/lease will not fall through).
Buying a 07 Prius ($28k), the dealer jumped in with my wife and I.
Checking out an 07 Audi A6 ($57k), the option was there for a "48 hour test ride"
It still is, but the burden of proof is significantly higher - you have to be either a witness to the actual commission of the crime, or have a reasonable awareness there of "a la Crimestoppers, police reports or the like", not "some guy on a forum said so"...
Tell us, Oh Wise Cowardly One, what were the police meant to do to prevent the theft of this car, "BEFORE THE FACT". When responding, frame your answer as something appropriate to those of us living here and now in the real world, not in Minority Report.
In which case I will stand duly, and humbly, corrected. :)
Guess what? BUY a TiVo, then, and enjoy the FEE then for using a DVR you ACTUALLY OWN.
Ye gods. I'm beginning to think TiVo broadcasts subliminal messages.
Funny, my 722 DVR from Dish just works, "New Episodes", hit record when I find the program in the guide, ability to search the guide by genre, keywords, actors, etc... And it only costs $6 a month. I can see how I'm being shafted, true enough.
The 'article' was written by the submitter for his blog, and contained glaring errors of fact, so I'd take it with quite the grain of salt.
I'd believe it. People who don't watch TV usually tend to be quite vocal about it. ;)
"Quite obviously a lie", really? "Burden to prove"? Uhh, you're full of shit, AC. "Balance of probabilities". When did patent law become criminal?
I may be wrong, but I believe you can do HDCP over DVI without too much concern, presuming there's accurate and complete support in your firmware. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.
DISH WILL NOT have "to turn off DVR to most of its customers". Anyone using the 622 or 722 (what they ship now as their DVR offerings) is NOT affected. Software was upgraded months ago specifically to get around the patent. If you have a far older DVR, then all this means, is you'll get a free upgrade to the new model, rather than paying for it. A pain in the ass though the patent is, a travesty this is not.
Mmm, pimping your own misleading blog FTW! It's not like many people in the comments of his own blog entry he submitted didn't point out this RATHER MAJOR DISCREPANCY... but oh noes! Removing scaremongering does not help pageviews, does it?
Very, very true. Fund availability and check clearance are two different things. The former is a function of financial institution policy and your (or your account) standing with them, as to whether they'll make you wait, make all funds available immediately based on history, or funds up to $1,000, etc. Especially if it's an international check, clearance can take up to a month (usually up to a week domestically, a few days for the major institutions).
But yes, there's a reason they ask, not debit.
Well, if you can't ignore it, turn it into a positive: record it, and sell it on a website!
Wow. Classy.
How bout you toddle on over to CF Hardcore? I'm sure they'd love someone like you.
Could you be the prototypical RoR apologist?
What a joke, that would be close to the most pathetic defense of SIM locking I've ever heard. You're also aware that AT&T does not offer global roaming in every country, but again, who cares, "Buy another phone for THAT trip, too! Wee, phones for everybody!"
In half seriousness, though, as a recent import to America, "World News" is generally "What Happened in Canada and Mexico Today".
I don't think the US can claim any form of superiority there - I just moved to Washington from Australia, and I had more than my fair share of Americans who assumed that Melbourne to Sydney would be "about two hours" and Melbourne to Perth would be "a long day trip, probably overnight", driving. For reference: Melbourne to Sydney: 548mi. Melbourne to Perth: 2,132mi.
As opposed to the US?!? I just moved to the US from Australia and it took a while to process just how much real estate was devoted to highways and freeways in a "small" city (Tacoma, WA), and bigger, Seattle. I don't think the US has any claims at being better... different, but just as bad.
Next he'll be telling you how much better is life is now that he's not "chained to the idiot machine", and how he just finished reading some Milton.
Run while you still can!
(With apologies to both The Onion and you, personally, who didn't exhibit those qualities at all, but reminded me of the cliché.)