Comment Re:canada overage costs (Score 0) 339
This is not about overage. It is about pre-paid, non-contract usage.
Comment Re:Oh no! (Score 0) 339
Let me get this straight. You didn't monitor your usage and went over your allowed data plan and are upset because they notified you at 0800 instead of immediately when you ran out at 0300 even though they are not required to notify you at all. Does that sound about right?
Sounds to me like you fit right in here in America with your victim mentality.
You are responsible for monitoring your usage, not the cell company. Next time, act like a responsible adult and monitor your usage.
Sounds to me like you fit right in here in America with your victim mentality.
You are responsible for monitoring your usage, not the cell company. Next time, act like a responsible adult and monitor your usage.
Comment Re:Oh no! (Score 0) 339
I think you and any poor person who is using a smart phone need to get your priorities straight. If someone is poor, then that person should not be wasting money buying a smart phone or data plan. They have more important things to worry about such as the basics of life like food and shelter.
If you can not qualify or afford either a contract or a monthly plan, then you really shouldn't be spending the money on a smart phone because, honestly, you don't have the resources.
Complaining that poor people are getting soaked in the mobile phone data market is like complaining that poor people are getting a bum deal when it comes to buying champaign and caviar or driving exotic sports cars.. Just because a product is available, it does not follow that the product is going to be affordable for everyone. Every product or service is not not targeted at all segments of the population nor are they required to be priced so everyone can afford them.
If you can not qualify or afford either a contract or a monthly plan, then you really shouldn't be spending the money on a smart phone because, honestly, you don't have the resources.
Complaining that poor people are getting soaked in the mobile phone data market is like complaining that poor people are getting a bum deal when it comes to buying champaign and caviar or driving exotic sports cars.. Just because a product is available, it does not follow that the product is going to be affordable for everyone. Every product or service is not not targeted at all segments of the population nor are they required to be priced so everyone can afford them.
Comment Smartphones for the poor? (Score 0) 339
Don't the poor have better things to do with their money than paying for a smart phone and its associated data plan? You know, things like food, and shelter?
China Calls Out US On Internet Freedom 338
rsmiller510 writes "In an interesting case of the pot calling the kettle black, the Chinese government released a report criticizing the US government of being hypocrites where Internet freedom was concerned — criticizing others for cracking down, yet circling the wagons when it involves US internal security (WikiLeaks anyone?). And the Chinese might have a point."
Comment Re:4th Amendment? (Score 0) 400
A) A specific car is NOT being recorded. All cars passing are being recorded. Your argument is invalid.
B) No, you do not need to get judicial oversight for what you have described. A no-one' s fourth amendment rights are not being violated in the scenario you describe specifically because the vehicle in question is in plain view of the public on a public road. Surveillance only requires judicial oversight when it intrudes on a person's privacy, such as tapping phones, entering private locations, intercepting packages, etc. Assuming you are not lying about being a former federal agent (doing so may be a violation of federal law, btw), your agency may have required it (which I seriously doubt), but the law does not.
And, I do not believe you are a former federal agent for any investigative agency of the executive branch.
B) No, you do not need to get judicial oversight for what you have described. A no-one' s fourth amendment rights are not being violated in the scenario you describe specifically because the vehicle in question is in plain view of the public on a public road. Surveillance only requires judicial oversight when it intrudes on a person's privacy, such as tapping phones, entering private locations, intercepting packages, etc. Assuming you are not lying about being a former federal agent (doing so may be a violation of federal law, btw), your agency may have required it (which I seriously doubt), but the law does not.
And, I do not believe you are a former federal agent for any investigative agency of the executive branch.
Comment Re:4th Amendment? (Score 0) 400
You are in public and have no expectation of privacy from what can be casually observed. Neither you or your vehicle is being searched. Your vehicle is in plain sight. It is being observed in a specific location, just as if a police car drove past it and the officer noted it. This is no more a search than if a police officer went by, on foot or in a car, and saw you waving a gun around or passing a pipe with pot in it back and forth with a friend.
Stop trying to claim that being seen on a public road is a violation of your privacy. I will say it again: You do not have an expectation of privacy for anything casually observable while you are in a public location. Quit invading our public with your private.
Stop trying to claim that being seen on a public road is a violation of your privacy. I will say it again: You do not have an expectation of privacy for anything casually observable while you are in a public location. Quit invading our public with your private.
Comment Re:4th Amendment? (Score 1, Informative) 400
Neither you or your vehicle is being searched. Your vehicle is in plain sight. It is being observed in a specific location, just as if a police car drove past it and the officer noted it.
NYPD Anti-Terrorism Cameras Used For Much More 400
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the NY Times:
"The Police Department's growing web of license-plate-reading cameras has been transforming investigative work. Though the imaging technology was conceived primarily as a counterterrorism tool, the cameras' presence — all those sets of watchful eyes that never seem to blink — has aided in all sorts of traditional criminal investigations. ... 'We knew going into it that they would have other obvious benefits,' Mr. Browne said about the use of the readers in the initiative. 'Obviously, conventional crime is far more common than terrorism, so it is not surprising that they would have benefits, more frequently, in conventional crime fighting than in terrorism.'"
Is Science Just a Matter of Faith? 1486
Hugh Pickens writes "Pastabagel writes that the actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?'"
Piracy Is a Market Failure — Not a Legal One 591
Mr.Fork writes "Michael Geist, Canada's copyright law guru and law prof at the University of Ottawa, posted an interesting observation about the copyright issue of piracy. Canada's International Development Research Centre came to a conclusion that 'piracy is chiefly a product of a market failure, not a legal one' after a multi-year study of six relevant economies. 'Even in those jurisdictions where there are legal distribution channels, pricing renders many products unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Foreign rights holders are often more concerned with preserving high prices in developed countries, rather than actively trying to engage the local population with reasonably-priced access. These strategies may maximize profits globally, but they also serve to facilitate pirate markets in many developed countries.'"
Comment Re:Inflammatory headline (Score -1) 519
It is not YOUR money. It would come out of an ATM that you do not own from an account that is not yours, therefore it is not your money.
You, yourself, said that it is only stealing when a removable object is involved. Well, no removable object of yours is involved at all. By YOUR definition it would not be stealing. So, either admit you are a lying hypocrite or that it is not stealing.
It always amuses me when little thieves like you, who have no problem taking OTHER people's information, suddenly see taking bits and information as wrong when it is YOUR information and bits. You are a lying, thieving hypocrite. You deprive others of their just gain because you are too cheap and selfish to do without that which you would not purchase.
Oh, and while we are at it, the definition of stealing is:
You, yourself, said that it is only stealing when a removable object is involved. Well, no removable object of yours is involved at all. By YOUR definition it would not be stealing. So, either admit you are a lying hypocrite or that it is not stealing.
It always amuses me when little thieves like you, who have no problem taking OTHER people's information, suddenly see taking bits and information as wrong when it is YOUR information and bits. You are a lying, thieving hypocrite. You deprive others of their just gain because you are too cheap and selfish to do without that which you would not purchase.
Oh, and while we are at it, the definition of stealing is:
Take another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
The information is legally the property of someone else and you have taken the information without legal right to do so. Therefore, it is stealing. You will note that the definition of stealing does not include anything about depriving the owner use of the thing stolen. Just like the guys in Florida who "stole" empty houses by filing adverse possession claims, which were false, and then renting the houses out.
Comment Re:Inflammatory headline (Score -1) 519
How about if someone took the information that represents your bank account balance and moved them to his bank account. No mobile object has been removed and only bits diddled. How about if someone cloned your ATM card and sniped your PIN, then made withdrawals? None of your mobile objects have been removed. Still think it is not stealing?
Comment Re:Inflammatory headline (Score -1) 519
They are freeloaders and thieves, jackass. And, I am pretty sure you are a freeloading thief, asshole.
Comment Missing something important (Score 0) 228
132 on this article and not one about Michael Jewson and his criminal behavior. No, ever single one is about how the company was stupid to trust their ISP to have backups.
This shouldn't surprise me as most Slashdotters seem to approve of the kind of act Jewson committed. I have no doubt many are envious that he was able to do it while they themselves are incapable of striking back at their former employers.
This shouldn't surprise me as most Slashdotters seem to approve of the kind of act Jewson committed. I have no doubt many are envious that he was able to do it while they themselves are incapable of striking back at their former employers.
