And how is preventing your children from being able to view pornographic content not parenting?
Because in this case it delegates the responsibility of what is and what is not porn to the filter providers, instead of being a conversation between parents & children.
I know, I know.. I'm old-fashioned. Now get off my lawn etc.
Old-fashioned because you only do one of two sensible things and act like a choice between the two is the only viable path? I don't think so. The idea that your child is capable of making adult decisions and in fact should be exposed to adult situations at extremely young ages is very new.
What kind of typo brings you to a porn website?
whitehouse.(choose carefully here)
however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.
And how is preventing your children from being able to view pornographic content not parenting?
I just wanted to note that long-range RFID (such as would be used in this type of application) does require the RFID chip to be powered. The ones that don't need a battery only work at very short ranges.
I have no expertise in RFID chips, but I'd be curious what defines "long range". According to this paper, a passive (non-powered) 15cm RFID antenna is effective at a range up to 4.9 meters (and I believe this number assumes a non-directional scanner). That is certainly less distance than is between the windshield and the readers above the road.
Can you provide more insight into how you are defining "long range" and "very short range"? It looks like modern RFID tech can passively be scanned up to 40 feet in "normal conditions", and I'd have to assume that interstate, windshield-mounted, directional travel is rather normal.
The old models only have a battery because they beep and some (perhaps all) have a display showing your I-PASS balance. The newer models are entirely sealed, and do not require a battery because they work by RFID chips. This post is a bit ridiculous.
If you want the reasoning... go no farther than the I-PASS website (quoted below):
I have one of the old display model transponders that beeps. Can I keep replacing the battery instead of swapping it out for a new transponder?
These older model transponders need to be replaced to ensure customers continue to receive the benefits of I-PASS and avoid toll violations. The Tollway recommends that these transponders be replaced for two important reasons:
The older transponder model is no longer being manufactured and, therefore, is no longer certified by the manufacturer. Our testing has shown that the older transponder model does not perform as well as the new transponders on the new open road tolling system."
So what about "Manage Add Ons"-> "Disable" does not work?
Everything. I have been continuously testing that fact since a co-worker was the victim of a java exploit. Whether it's disabled or not, IE loads Java exactly the same.
I have convinced several non-technical people to stop using IE all together when I could conclusively show them that there was no practical way to disable the Java plugin... Choir preaching over.
While Firefox and Chrome allow practical and real disabling of the Java functionality in their browsers, only Chrome offers really practical functionality for plugins (yes, I'm aware there are several other browsers out there that people deeply love, however testing in the above three tend to give proper rendering on all for web elements, so I don't plan on expanding my repertoire).
In Chrome, if the Java (or Windows Media Player, etc.) plugin is requested by a page, users are prompted to give domain specific permanent access to the plugin or allow it for one-time use. As ridiculously problematic as Java is from a security perspective, it is also extremely useful for enterprise-level products that use it exclusively for powerful web-based back ends (Cisco firewalls for one).
To do nothing is to be nothing.