except for the fact that many of the current (and EMV compliant) cards still offer the magstrip fallback info FROM THE RFID ITSELF, because...stupid (see the many hacking demonstrations of such cards). And as others have pointed out, most of the RFID systems don't require a pin. And I also don't want to deal with letting a machine pick which of the 6 cards in my "wallet" I want to use to pay with, since a contactless tap won't tell the difference. Yes, I have 3 different Visas, 2 AMEXs, and a MC. And that's not at all unusual. I really really hate, on a security and convenience level, that the RFID "contactless" stuff is being pushed so hard on unwilling people.

and I really, really don't see how that's an improvement to security. Why the fark are we doing contactless, and not just going with the chip+pin?

Google also says "we may access, and collect technical information from or about, televisions, set-top boxes, computer and network hardware and software, modems, or other systems or devices used in connection with Fiber" and "We may also obtain and use information about our Fiber users from outside sources for marketing purposes (such as commercially available demographic, geographic, or interest information)" - just what I need, the people who send me junk mail into my mailbox, having an inroad to targeted advertising during my web browsing experience. I know, I know, then don't use google fiber. That's not the question. The question is why is AT&T getting harshed for it? Because they have bad customer service? Have you never had a technical issue with your gmail account, and tried to get help? It doesn't happen.

*sigh* That's easy enough to stop...but not if they're my ISP, and not if as a term for being my ISP I have to have a google account, and not if they trace all the devices which get plugged into the router (as their statement describes). Now, despite my best intents to block all sorts of traffic, not allow third party cookies, clear everything every time the browser is closed, route all garbage traffic to 0.0.0.0, etc - they'll have my home address, and real info. "Then don't get google fiber" you say - that's not the question. The question is, why you think - given they're stating they'll collect this info - that what AT&T is doing, is any different. Why harsh AT&T, but not google? I know, I know, "we trust google more" - not after uber, I don't. Not after several of the other shiaty things they've done recently, showing true evil and corruption. I mean really, uber bragged about using burner phones to set up false pickups for Lyft drivers, and said it was just good "capitalism" and "competition" - and you trust them?

so, do you think google isn't doing the same with their fiber installs? https://fiber.google.com/legal...

you shut your mouth.

this. I was a Linux guy starting in 94 (I actually still have my infomagick cd set that has the mother's day release on it), and yeah...stopped using it because of systemd. Call me whacky. Moved to FreeBSD. I know, I'm a whiner or something.

No one will ever need more than 640K of ram! You kids and your technology, it's all a fad!

so yeah, uh..I can tell the difference quite well even on small screens. Now, my wife might not be letting me replace the main screen in the TV room with a 4k yet, but...she'll come around. The AVR and content providers we use already support it. If you can't see the difference between 1k, 4k, and 8k, then...your loss?

uh, why would a vegan "explode" over concerns about bacteria? It's so funny to hear people say vegans bring up veganism...when really it's just idiots that insert vegan-bashing into unrelated conversations, and the vegans just end up saying "uh, what?" Plants are exponentially more complex, and vegans eat the heck out of those....

that's a lovely view you have there. You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make, however - which is that the FAA has no business trying to do this. I was intentionally giving an extreme outside case, to explain precisely why it's not something the FAA should do - the treaty was incomplete, and written half a century ago. Things have changed. It isn't the USGOV's business (via the FAA or any other US agency) to "regulate" these things. It's the business of an international body.

or a big wall moving slower, and when they crash, oops - you should have slowed yours down too? Or spy satellites hovering over another country? The UN needs to take the reigns, not the FAA. In theory we evolved past the point of the rich ("companies", previously just lords/kings/trade companies/etc) having independent sovereignty many centuries ago, for most of the world.

is it just about the moon which you feel this way? What about near-space? No one is touching a satellite, so if you go up and touch it you can claim it? What about the space station - if it was temporarily empty and another country rushed up there, could they call dibs? The UN simply needs to make some sort of organization for regulating this, since we're way too close to commercial entities being up there. The idea that the FAA would do it is absurd.

sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays!

It's farking 6.0. That *is* the farking version. What is the "6.0" thing if 1.0 is the version?

you want a "modern" camera that will "support FTP?" No modern *anything* should. And seriously, what the hell sort of process is this that you'd do this this way? If the menu changed, then someone typed the new one. Instead of saving as a doc, save as a pdf - boom, there's your pdf. You seem to be making a convoluted process just to bill them 10x as much as they could pay, to create a complicated pathway which will be expensive and non-intuitive to maintain. Is this a job security thing?