One of the coolest movie experiences I've ever had was watching Hot Water (1924) starring Harold Lloyd in a church with live organ accompaniment.
The link I provided was to the current Music Freedom offering.
I don't use it but was aware of it when I signed up with T-Mobile last year.
T-Mobile offers music streaming without it impacting your data usage, "from your favorite music services like Pandora, iHeartRadio, iTunes Radio, Rhapsody, and more."
So the profit incentive is not based on data usage, but in using music services (I'm assuming there's a kick back at some point from the service providers, otherwise the business model makes no sense).
I was wondering about this also. I think the people targeted participate in the social features of Steam. I have 300 or so games (Corporate Lifestyle Simulator is my current burn time game) and have used Steam for many years. I have two "friends" on Steam.
Not one piece of spam or scammer contact, ever.
There are obviously sublevels of interaction I was not aware of. Until now.
Slightly interesting actually.
With regards to flying in the US, everything changed in late 2001.
Flying in America was awesome back in the 1990s. In 1998, I flew to my honeymoon without ID (left it in the car) and we were able to catch an earlier flight at the overlay point. I was even allowed to go back on the first plane to find my ticket voucher which had dropped between the seats. And they asked two basic questions (Did you pack your bags? Did you accept items from strangers?).
I hate flying now. I imagine it's a lot like being processed jail, but more intrusive.
The first 15 minutes of that movie were solid Gold (I loved the belt).
I don't think the concept was flexible or deep enough for anything over short skits, certainly not a full length movie (A Night at the Roxbury is also in this category).
I thought Zoolander would also fall into this category and avoided it for a couple of years. But once I saw it and realized the comic genius that it is, it became one of my favorite movies.
This sounds quiet dangerous:
truck oil change/chassis lube/tire rotation rope climbing courses
But also quite exciting.
Actually we'll go camping a lot, the kids are only five.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Microsoft announced the Surface 3 on Tuesday, a lighter, cheaper alternative to its Surface Pro 3, which was released last year. Unlike Microsoft's other non-Pro tablets, this one will run a full version of Windows 8.1. And its price point puts it squarely in...
Surface 3 Looks Awesome But Don't Waste Your Money On 4G / LTEForbes
Microsoft Surface 3 promises great battery life, costs just $499 and runs
Microsoft's Surface 3: Stuck in the middle between work and play?CNET
all 186 news articles
Link to Original Source
This is way off topic, but I have reset things and tried others. Slashdot can be difficult to navigate at times.
I attempted to but I can't figure it out, and I'm sick and tired of the pure HTML posting and moderating interface (it sucks wiffle balls).
I have enabled Slashdot.org in NoScript.
Thanks for the info. I understand and can appreciate the implications of the OFAC lists (basically a simple form of economic warfare against specific individuals and parties, preventing them from using certain global financial companies).
But, OFAC checks are supposed to be performed before any funds are transferred (prior to contract entry in my experience). So they generally can't be seized or impounded by the US financial system, because letting them in at all is illegal (I'm sure they are at least frozen if a company, such as Paypal, performs transactions for a restricted party).
Here are the OFAC lists:
I'm not sure if this is good or not, but it does represent a valid usage of OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) regulations.
I've designed international life insurance admin systems that involved OFAC checks. Resolution requires manual verification.
OFAC provides a list of people that you cannot do business with if you are a US company (possibly if you have a US presence, I'm not sure though, I worked for a US company). It is basically a list of terrorists or otherwise sanctioned individuals that the US blocks financial transaction with.(Osama is still there as far as I know, he was our test case).
I've always considered OFAC to be a Federally mandated job program. Same for Sarbanes-Oxley (worked with that a lot as well). Just extra regulation requiring more bodies at every financial company.
I coined the never heard phrase "OFAC is to preventing terrorism as Sarbanes-Oxley is to preventing fraud" (I have an actuarial and IT background, so it's funny to me).
But in this case, initial appearances would suggest that the fine is justified. If the person on the OFAC list is justifiably on the list.
And that justification is my problem with the system. The rules are pretty secret, anyone could end up on the list and not be able to fight it. It's like the no-fly list which even impacted a Kennedy:
Interesting for sure.