Comment Re:How will the system work? (Score 2) 455
They are probably talking about tracking your purchases probably based on some personally identifiable information (credit cards, store reward cards etc). And assume you eat what you purchase.
They are probably talking about tracking your purchases probably based on some personally identifiable information (credit cards, store reward cards etc). And assume you eat what you purchase.
Peanut butter is a slurry: tiny solid particles suspended in a fluid phase. So is toothpaste.
The secondary screening is done by a 350lb guy named Ivan.
Speaking of Motorola, so far I haven't heard of one single phone from them that has CIQ on it. My Motorola XPRT certainly doesn't have it (I used Trevor's tools to check) nor does the Verizon equivalent (Droid Pro). More power to them.
Mine is infinity since I don't have a facebook account.
I have used a program that did exactly that on my WinCE PDA, over 6-7 years ago.
I agree. I use a cheapo ($15 or so) serial port Chinese-made programmer for DIP8 I2C and SPI EEPROMs, has been working like a charm for over 2 years. Looks like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Serial-Eeprom-programmer-24Cxx-93Cxx-and-25xxx-/22/!C!P6,0QBWk~$(KGrHqV,!jME0DV!UBpyBNCNme3PvQ~~_12.JPG
I believe you can find USB versions for not much more money.
My phone is from Motorola. My e-reader is from B&N. Not only they're good, but they're also Microsoft-patent-free. Win-win.
Good thing dinosaurs never discovered the properties of pot... now THAT would be a big hunger.
(or maybe they did... and went extinct)
I have all versions of Windows from 3.0 to XP in use - all in virtual machines. The ones I use the most (for testing and gaming purposes) are XP from the NT series, and Me from the 9x series. Since the virtual hardware is standardized, Me doesn't get into driver hell and is remarkably stable.
it's funny that the tech industry holds some of the most privacy-concerned individuals (..)
That is only if you believe the all-caps paragraphs on all the EULAs and TOS you click through. Often the following paragraphs will contradict the bombastic declarations of commitment to privacy - on the same page.
Romania is in Europe. In Romania, you pay for receiving calls on your cell phone.
What were you saying about ludicrous?
Quote from the discussion:
"The justification is simple. We're removing the Firefox version number
from all of the common user-visible locations because we don't believe
that users need to know what version they're on. We're moving to a model
that's more like the Web. What version of Gmail are you on?
We've removed it from all of our marketing materials. We're removing it
from the download button on the Website. We're removing it from how we
talk to users about Firefox. We're ending version numbers because
they're not meaningful to users (except in troubleshooting situations.)
People using Firefox do need to have confidence that they're on the
latest version, though, and that's what this feature provides. Telling
the user explicitly that Firefox has checked and that she is indeed up
to date is a much better way of letting the user know that she's up to
date than giving her a number she can compare with some other number on
a website somewhere to figure out if she's on the latest version. "
I cannot subscribe to this reasoning. There are many, many reasons why an end-user will want to know the version of Firefox he's using. For instance if he wants to avoid a certain feature present in some builds but not in others. Example: the so-called "AwesomeBar" (more of an AwfulBar if you ask me) which I had to go to extra lengths to avoid. Not everyone likes every single bit of Firefox.
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.