How do I mount a Bitlocker volume in Linux?
You can search in the address bar.
Sorta - if your favorite/memory-muscle way of searching for stuff on websites is specifying the website first, then I'm fairly certain that searching for (e.g.) site:slashdot.org firefox will not give you what you'd get in the search bar in 29 - I'm seem to recall getting bitten by it in 29 way back when I couldn't figure out how to get the search bar to be visible (reset the UI was the solution) - it's certainly still broken in 31.
Since the government provides their health insurance....
Actually the taxpayers pay for the NHS - where do you think the government steals the money from (when they're not running the country in deficit that is)? Ostensibly the item marked "National Insurance" on our payslips pays for (among other things) this.
Not that it actually gets ring-fenced, and most people recognise it for what it is - another form of income tax.
... normal office computers, not running data-centric applications, access just 9.58GB of unique data per day.
Round up to 10GB. So in 2 weeks (10 working days) that's an additional 100GB stored locally.
In 20 weeks you've filled up a 1TB drive.
What kind of office (aside from video production) works like that? The ones I know of, most of the machines are used to check email, do data entry on one or two database apps, surf, maybe create some documents or spreadsheets which are then stored on the file server. Other than the database apps, that's less than a couple of megabytes per person per day. And other than temp files, NONE of it should be stored on the local machine.
And if your average user is caching 10GB of temp files then you have a problem with your apps.
I rather suspect that "data" includes stuff like the binaries that make up the operating system and programs that are being used, and simply isn't just documents, temp files etc. that those programs are working with.
In the UK all BBC programmes are freeview and contain no commercials.
Of course all UK BBC channels have commercials. Just to other BBC content - most people consider this 'not advertising' for some reason however.
And I'm not just counting the adverts between the programmes advertising either other programmes on the same channel or stuff on other channels/media. 'Terrestrial' BBC News, for example is notorious for cross-advertising stuff.
Hilarious! Where does the stupidity end?
Except that's an advert for an event on the 18th Feb. TFA is dated 14th Feb, 4 days before the advertised event - is it not possible that the one attended by Mr Hindi was in fact a live shoot even before the 14th?
Not that I particularly agree with his attempts at what appear to be trespass/annoy on private property (is flying remote controlled aircraft like this over private property trespass?)
"...and their Internet allies simultaneously turn black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians about a vote in the U.S. Congress the next day on SOPA."
Are they going to geo-locate IP addresses so those of us that don't have a congress-critter to talk to don't see what, to us, is a pointless message?
There's been a few deleted/suspended:
Another one in the UK (I think): http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/25/facebook-bans-kate-middleton-%E2%80%94-no-not-the-famous-one-the-other-one/?xid=rss-topstories
So then, does this mean your stalkers will know where you are, and your local burglar will know where you aren't?
Instead I contacted my credit card, told them what happened, and they reversed the charge on the basis of the merchant not fulfilling contractual obligations (selling the product advertised).
Can you tell us who the credit card issuer was, because I'd like to research switching a card to them.
Any credit card issuer is obligated to refund under these circumstances for purchases between £100 and £30,000 in the UK.
Who are the customers of a site such as this; the users, or the advertisers?
Silly question. As with the likes of Y!Groups, the users are the product. The advertisers are the customers.
It's the only model that makes sense when the adverts are being relied upon to generate cash that is required to keep the site going.
I don't recall telling banks in the UK any government-issued ID numbers, but I haven't opened a bank account there recently.
Money laundering requirements in the UK generally take the form of 2 or more pieces of documentation that prove both who you are, and where you live. (Drivers licence or passport for who you are, tax notices, benefits letters, utility bills for address.) Used in conjunction with data held by Experian/Equifax (which includes electoral information as backup for where you live.)
The closest you'll get to explicitly handing over a government issued ID number to a bank is if you open an ISA (Individual Savings Account - limited tax free savings,) and they ask you for your National Insurance number.
Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.
1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.
And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...
Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice? (Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)
2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.
Take it to a judge then. The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not.
On a related note...
Do none of these places have an offense of "driving without due care or attention" which would suffice, rather than continuously create bespoke laws to legislate against every new device that comes out that could cause drivers to, erm, drive without due care or attention?
(And, yes, the UK does have the first offense, but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage.)