and if you get a decent cable from a proper parts retailer (I can get a 5m A-B for £1.49, around $3.00) it's not a problem given you're already spending 10 times that on the printer.
I have a MFP HP printer at home, reasonably high end (the C6180), $299. My wife was kind enough to buy me an Epson R1800 photo printer for Christmas at $499. Now, I know you can buy $30-$50 printers, but why wouldn't you expect to get shafted on a lack of USB cable if you're only paying that for the printer.
Why would they state what's been altered - it ain't none of your business what the kid actually got detention for, and it's not their position to disclose that, that little thing called "privacy", you may recall.
Ask Motorola (I think?), for several of their models, the Mini USB charger would, I presume, send a data signal too, whilst charging, to ensure you only attempted to charge with a Genuine(TM) Authentic(TM) Motorola(R)(TM) Charger(TM).
Anecdotally, I have my doubts. I have a pretty complex network - the office upstairs (with 4 LAN devices, including a Polycom phone) is connected via a wireless bridge between upstairs and downstairs with two Linksys routers. Where does my router downstairs sit? Right on top of my XBox 360. I VPN without a hiccup, use the phone without a hiccup, and stream music, whilst my partner and her friends have played games downstairs on the 360 for hours and not once have I ever seen the network hiccup as a result.
I'm surprised you didn't extrapolate on the concept of loyalty, as in 'misplaced'. She, as a partner in Jones Day, stands to gain or lose monetarily based on the outcome of any action taken by the FTC against DoubleClick. From as straightforward as the amount of work produced by outside counsel that DoubleClick requires. If the FTC were to move against DoubleClick, then all that advice on things related to the merger become irrelevant, and ergo Jones Day doesn't have work they can bill for, and she as a partner does not earn income out of this work. Ergo, she has a loyalty to protect her interests, and those of her law firm, if nothing else.
who could not possibly afford either to buy the music legitimately
Apropos of anything else, apropos of your beliefs on this subject, do you really want this to be allowed as an acceptable reasoning? "Your Honor, I move to have the case dismissed on the grounds that I only obtained it illegally because I couldn't possibly afford to purchase it legitimately".
Re the first part, I made mention of checks etc, though I realize it's both ambiguous in my description and definition - you can't refuse a card purchase transaction based on ID refusal, but if you were to then refused the transaction upon presentment of alternate payment methods, you would be okay. If you took cash without ID, but refused a card, then you'd be in trouble.
Re the second part, absolutely - the number of people I've explained the "you're technically not covered by a "See ID" signature panel", for all the reasons you detailed.
Two out of three ain't bad. Refusing credit under a minimum, adding a fee - will get your knuckles rapped by the CC processor. "Not completing a transaction unless you show ID" - perfectly plausible as part of a merchant (in the 'store' context, not credit card) terms of service, for the same reason they do so with checks. The only issue with ID and credit cards is people writing "Check Photo ID" on their signature strip - the merchant is perfectly within rights (and in fact is meant to) refuse to process a card that is not inscribed with a signature in the panel.
AVS is not required for Card Not Present / MoTo transactions. To use AVS may involve more upfront costs in systems that will handle it, but actually result in a lower rate as there is a lower fraud rate against AVS verified transactions than not.
Hahaha. Of all the subjects that are subject to POV and other nefarious elements controlling the content, the Middle East (and Intelligent Design) would be the most prominent. By all means read, but also read of the number of disputes that have come about due to editorial agenda-pushing, too.
That's hilarious - "It's a travesty! I propose a boycott! Well, unless it means me having to do without whatever I want, in the way I want it, then it's okay."
Cell phone makers charge lots of $$$ for ring tones and apps via DRM lockin.
Doubtful. Carriers charge lots of $$$ for these things. I'd be surprised if for Nokia etc such things formed 0.1% of their revenue. Besides, they'd only be covering half of the equation by doing so. They still allow free uploads via IR, Bluetooth, USB, TCP/IP to their devices and use for ringtones - with few exceptions, restrictions on this are placed into carrier specific firmware, not by the manufacturer.
The bit in the article that made me laugh: "Well, I couldn't feel comfortable downloading anything from Gnutella that's more than 4mb, so I'm just searching and searching. Then I start to think, if I'm on there researching, maybe that's what other people are on there doing." and uses that as one extrapolation as to how the numbers are inaccurate, when in reality, I think the numbers of connections that are on Gnutella "just to research what's there to download, and who's downloading, but not actually downloading themselves" is probably as high (or, rather, low) as "the number of connections that are on Gnutella exclusively to share Linux ISOs".
Whereas, of course, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, and the for profit enterprise Wikia, at least we know he has no vested interested in selling the benefits of his works over EB, right?
Nor according to the talk page - the general consensus seems to be soft-blocking of anonymous editing.
I was pleasantly surprised by his response to this. Of course, there wasn't really any other response that wouldn't look colossally stupid when you had Admins using Tor nodes left right and center and having free reign, whilst freely employing the "banhammer" on mere mortals.
It's funny that, from my reading, a 'web bug' is described as spyware. Not really the same thing. Ethical? Perhaps debatable. But when you already suspect (rightly or wrongly) that you're dealing with someone who has vested interests that lie tangential from you, you'd be on guard too. Interestingly, no-one comments on the fact that the first thing that our Wikipedia admin does when receiving information is pass it on to the other party of the conflict, before even reading it herself.
Of course not, that's a can of worms that really shouldn't be opened up, that might give trolls ammunition. Hah.
Of course, Mr Cyde Weys a very early administrator, and one viewed by many to be one of the cabal, if not at least definitely "inner circle" material, may not be your most neutral debater in this issue.
Either he was pushing his own personal agenda (which, looking at his history of 'edits', I'm strongly inclined to believe), or he was just trying to boost his "edit count" in some sort of retarded metric that a lot of wikipedians share, that rank people by the numbers of edits they make, which is perfectly retarded. I saw a admin ignore one guy's post in a edit war thread because he "only had 80 edits".
c) all of the above.
There's a reason why there's userblocks for "This user has made xx,000 edits to Wikipedia". Often you'll read of a new admin who'll have "joined November 2006, made 11,000 edits, then became admin April 2007". 11,000 edits in 4 months?
Look at Articles for Deletion, too - regular mention will be made of (though it's not policy) certain people's edit counts, "just as a helpful FYI". Durova, who got bit by the "sleuthing" calamity, is one in particular for that, or who'll point out that "this is this user's first vote in an AfD in their last 500 edits" (when said user has several thousand edits) - I've thought for a while about this and can think of not a single valid point that that makes.
The only really positive thing is that it seems JayJG has retired (an extended so-called "wikibreak", which is a perfectly retarded term as well, IMO).
Assuming a) he's not behind the scenes pulling strings, unlikely not to be the case, as he's still very vocal on mailing lists, and b) he doesn't have a sockpuppet (hell, I'd be surprised if he didn't have another admin sockpuppet).
especially as Wikipedia has hit so high in its search rankings seeing as it's essentially one gigantic fucking linkfarm (that gives out no bump to anyone else now that they implemented external-link "nofollow" tags).
Not entirely correct. There is a policy in place that allows Wikia - Jimbo's for-profit enterprise - links, to not be "nofollow"ed, and gain the benefit of Wikipedia's PageRank. Funny, that. If you go look at Wikipedia's entries on Family Guy, too, you'll see another interesting practice - great swathes of things been "not-notable" transwiki'd to Wikia, where ads on each and every page generate Jimbo income. Almost every single link on the Family Guy entries now point to Jimbo's Wikia.
Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation.
What's amusing is that you honestly appear to think you're not an edge case, and that most graduates should be able to put aside $50,000 a year in savings. Apparently you believe that across the board, given a roughly twenty per cent tax rate, that the average wage of a college graduate is bearing in on $100,000.
Wow.
Really?
Let's take a wee peek at MIT. Hardly a bottom of the barrel college, and bear in mind they only offer figures from 2003-2005. In 2003, of 115 four year graduates surveyed, not one made more than $94,000. The median was $54,000. 2004, still, no-one had topped a $100,000 salary, though the median climbed slightly. In 2005 a MIT graduate could expect to make $59,000 their first year out of college.
And yet here you are, lambasting people for not being able to save $50,000 their first year out of college? I'm impressed.
I would presume that rather than removing cookies upon 'logout', they keep a note of the fact you're logged out, and continue to track that cookie, knowing that the last logged in user was you.
or the USENET, which unfortunately used to be private but at some point companies started doing the exact same thing and in effect it became public, even though it shouldn't be
Oh PLEASE. One of the goals of Usenet was never for "private forums". Network News. Something anyone on the network can read. Hint, when I can go to a news server now and for certain groups have messages displayed from 2000 or earlier, and the fact that there are no retention policies, all it shows me if that you have this elitist high ground on some supposed implicit promise of privacy that only ever existed in your mind and the minds of those who never thought there might be accountability for their words. Lack of foresight is a failing of self, not of others to accommodate said lack.
Slashdot Mirror
From the page:
That's because you're a complete clown. Really? Wouldn't be too surprised? Blind Microsoft hate at its finest, everything else be damned.
I have a MFP HP printer at home, reasonably high end (the C6180), $299. My wife was kind enough to buy me an Epson R1800 photo printer for Christmas at $499. Now, I know you can buy $30-$50 printers, but why wouldn't you expect to get shafted on a lack of USB cable if you're only paying that for the printer.
Why would they state what's been altered - it ain't none of your business what the kid actually got detention for, and it's not their position to disclose that, that little thing called "privacy", you may recall.
Ask Motorola (I think?), for several of their models, the Mini USB charger would, I presume, send a data signal too, whilst charging, to ensure you only attempted to charge with a Genuine(TM) Authentic(TM) Motorola(R)(TM) Charger(TM).
Anecdotally, I have my doubts. I have a pretty complex network - the office upstairs (with 4 LAN devices, including a Polycom phone) is connected via a wireless bridge between upstairs and downstairs with two Linksys routers. Where does my router downstairs sit? Right on top of my XBox 360. I VPN without a hiccup, use the phone without a hiccup, and stream music, whilst my partner and her friends have played games downstairs on the 360 for hours and not once have I ever seen the network hiccup as a result.
I'm surprised you didn't extrapolate on the concept of loyalty, as in 'misplaced'. She, as a partner in Jones Day, stands to gain or lose monetarily based on the outcome of any action taken by the FTC against DoubleClick. From as straightforward as the amount of work produced by outside counsel that DoubleClick requires. If the FTC were to move against DoubleClick, then all that advice on things related to the merger become irrelevant, and ergo Jones Day doesn't have work they can bill for, and she as a partner does not earn income out of this work. Ergo, she has a loyalty to protect her interests, and those of her law firm, if nothing else.
Apropos of anything else, apropos of your beliefs on this subject, do you really want this to be allowed as an acceptable reasoning? "Your Honor, I move to have the case dismissed on the grounds that I only obtained it illegally because I couldn't possibly afford to purchase it legitimately".
Re the second part, absolutely - the number of people I've explained the "you're technically not covered by a "See ID" signature panel", for all the reasons you detailed.
Two out of three ain't bad. Refusing credit under a minimum, adding a fee - will get your knuckles rapped by the CC processor. "Not completing a transaction unless you show ID" - perfectly plausible as part of a merchant (in the 'store' context, not credit card) terms of service, for the same reason they do so with checks. The only issue with ID and credit cards is people writing "Check Photo ID" on their signature strip - the merchant is perfectly within rights (and in fact is meant to) refuse to process a card that is not inscribed with a signature in the panel.
AVS is not required for Card Not Present / MoTo transactions. To use AVS may involve more upfront costs in systems that will handle it, but actually result in a lower rate as there is a lower fraud rate against AVS verified transactions than not.
Hahaha. Of all the subjects that are subject to POV and other nefarious elements controlling the content, the Middle East (and Intelligent Design) would be the most prominent. By all means read, but also read of the number of disputes that have come about due to editorial agenda-pushing, too.
Are you serious?
Doubtful. Carriers charge lots of $$$ for these things. I'd be surprised if for Nokia etc such things formed 0.1% of their revenue. Besides, they'd only be covering half of the equation by doing so. They still allow free uploads via IR, Bluetooth, USB, TCP/IP to their devices and use for ringtones - with few exceptions, restrictions on this are placed into carrier specific firmware, not by the manufacturer.
The bit in the article that made me laugh: "Well, I couldn't feel comfortable downloading anything from Gnutella that's more than 4mb, so I'm just searching and searching. Then I start to think, if I'm on there researching, maybe that's what other people are on there doing." and uses that as one extrapolation as to how the numbers are inaccurate, when in reality, I think the numbers of connections that are on Gnutella "just to research what's there to download, and who's downloading, but not actually downloading themselves" is probably as high (or, rather, low) as "the number of connections that are on Gnutella exclusively to share Linux ISOs".
Wait, what?
Not according to Our Gracious Leader: http://www.webcitation.org/5QELRL7gf
Nor according to the talk page - the general consensus seems to be soft-blocking of anonymous editing. I was pleasantly surprised by his response to this. Of course, there wasn't really any other response that wouldn't look colossally stupid when you had Admins using Tor nodes left right and center and having free reign, whilst freely employing the "banhammer" on mere mortals.
Of course not, that's a can of worms that really shouldn't be opened up, that might give trolls ammunition. Hah.
Of course, Mr Cyde Weys a very early administrator, and one viewed by many to be one of the cabal, if not at least definitely "inner circle" material, may not be your most neutral debater in this issue.
c) all of the above.
There's a reason why there's userblocks for "This user has made xx,000 edits to Wikipedia". Often you'll read of a new admin who'll have "joined November 2006, made 11,000 edits, then became admin April 2007". 11,000 edits in 4 months?
Look at Articles for Deletion, too - regular mention will be made of (though it's not policy) certain people's edit counts, "just as a helpful FYI". Durova, who got bit by the "sleuthing" calamity, is one in particular for that, or who'll point out that "this is this user's first vote in an AfD in their last 500 edits" (when said user has several thousand edits) - I've thought for a while about this and can think of not a single valid point that that makes.
Assuming a) he's not behind the scenes pulling strings, unlikely not to be the case, as he's still very vocal on mailing lists, and b) he doesn't have a sockpuppet (hell, I'd be surprised if he didn't have another admin sockpuppet).
Not entirely correct. There is a policy in place that allows Wikia - Jimbo's for-profit enterprise - links, to not be "nofollow"ed, and gain the benefit of Wikipedia's PageRank. Funny, that. If you go look at Wikipedia's entries on Family Guy, too, you'll see another interesting practice - great swathes of things been "not-notable" transwiki'd to Wikia, where ads on each and every page generate Jimbo income. Almost every single link on the Family Guy entries now point to Jimbo's Wikia.
What in the name of blue fuck does this have to do with Microsoft, Twitter?
What's amusing is that you honestly appear to think you're not an edge case, and that most graduates should be able to put aside $50,000 a year in savings. Apparently you believe that across the board, given a roughly twenty per cent tax rate, that the average wage of a college graduate is bearing in on $100,000.
Wow.
Really?
Let's take a wee peek at MIT. Hardly a bottom of the barrel college, and bear in mind they only offer figures from 2003-2005. In 2003, of 115 four year graduates surveyed, not one made more than $94,000. The median was $54,000. 2004, still, no-one had topped a $100,000 salary, though the median climbed slightly. In 2005 a MIT graduate could expect to make $59,000 their first year out of college.
And yet here you are, lambasting people for not being able to save $50,000 their first year out of college? I'm impressed.
I would presume that rather than removing cookies upon 'logout', they keep a note of the fact you're logged out, and continue to track that cookie, knowing that the last logged in user was you.
Oh PLEASE. One of the goals of Usenet was never for "private forums". Network News. Something anyone on the network can read. Hint, when I can go to a news server now and for certain groups have messages displayed from 2000 or earlier, and the fact that there are no retention policies, all it shows me if that you have this elitist high ground on some supposed implicit promise of privacy that only ever existed in your mind and the minds of those who never thought there might be accountability for their words. Lack of foresight is a failing of self, not of others to accommodate said lack.