Couldn't you just pay your cable company $50 to turn it on for one month and then cancel?
Have you ever tried to cancel something from the Cable Company?
When I subscribed to cable many moons ago, I could do so from the website. They had all sorts of ways to subscribe or upgrade your subscription. When I cut the cord, I tried to cancel via the website, only to find that you had to call a phone number, and when I called that phone number, I was told I had to go to the cable company's storefront property to cancel. I went on a relatively calm day, in the middle of the week, and took a number and sat down. Three and a half hours later, they called my number. I walked up and told them I wanted to cancel my cable subscription and only have phone and internet. They had me go through a twenty minute survey on why I was cancelling my service, then spent another twenty minutes trying to persuade me to keep cable and just reduce my options. Finally, they "cancelled" my subscription. A week later, I received a bill which said I still had basic cable. I called again, only to be told to go into the store to fix the problem. Rinse, repeat.
Seems like it isn't worth the time or the money to get NBC for a month and then cancel.
But did they prevent critical features of Windows 95 from working when that support ended?
Depends, does issuing patches for discovered security flaws count? Not that I disagree, and Windows 95 works fine without security updates/patches...but some people would argue that critical features includes security flaw mitigation.
Wow, at one point RSA were crypto heroes to me. Phil Zimmerman was an inspiration to my studies. They've just burned the last tenuous bit of bridge remaining between us.
Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, Leonard Adleman and Phil Zimmerman are still crypto heroes. None of them currently have anything to do with the company RSA Security LLC (which is owned by EMC.) Zimmerman never had anything to do with RSA, except having RSA use the government goons to shut down PGP as "munitions" when PGP and RSA got into a little licensing spat.
Re: Re: "Threatening people with a pellet gun and pretending to rob them"
Every state has a concealed carry law now.
This is correct, though in some states the law specifically states that the government does not regulate or restrict concealed carry, meaning that no permit is required. However, there are many that would argue that there are still 7 states that make it impossible for any legal citizen to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon (unless they happen to be best buds with the politician who assigns these permits or a huge financial contributor of the current political party in power,) and thus really isn't in any way helpful for citizens in these states to provide meaningful defense against this situation.
But, contrary to what the anti-gunners would have you believe, very few people carry a gun.
I believe that is kinda the point. If only a few people carry, and you don't know who, the degree of difficulty in committing a crime is raised. You may be lucky, but when you aren't, you're dead. The degree of luck decreases as more states allow unrestricted or sane concealed carry, and while that number will remain small due to most people not carrying, the fact that you can't really tell who is makes the issue far less "worth it" for a criminal bent on using a weapon to scare the crap out of people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
I believe it is known as courtesy, a concept that seems here to have fallen into disfavor.
Having been on trains and public transportation in the US, for the most part, the courtesy still exists. And usually it exists on planes too. However, when you start talking loudly to someone else on a Japanese train, you very quickly find the whole train car staring at you...that is often enough to get you to shut up. Having the flight attendant come over and ask you to keep it down might be enough, and making it a law is overkill.
There is already too much stuff in the law-books that is poorly enforced and I'd hope by now we'd recognize as a nation that you can't regulate good behavior.
Not again - another impeachment idiot running around spewing the latest thing they heard on talk radio.
You know, a few years ago I'd agree with you. Those talk radio guys are wacko and wrong most of the time. But over the last couple years, they've been wacko and right. Kinda hard to call someone a wacko when what they are spewing is hitting the mark based on material generated by the government and released through official or unofficial means after they said it. They may still be wrong most of the time, but hit a couple truths and people start to believe you.
Not so long ago we would have been calling them prophets or truthsayers or readers.
Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
You can still use those phones: "`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill Text
Which is why I think this is driven more by the airlines than by end-users. What I hate about this is that it can then be used to prohibit use of cell phones, regardless to whether it is a voice call or a text message with a really annoying ring tone. I've sat on planes where folks were using the in-flight phones and they were just as obnoxious (and from a security perspective, dumb, since they were communicating sensitive data like IP addresses and passwords to log in to the system they were trying to troubleshoot at 30k feet above the earth) as cell phone users.
Having been on the trains in Japan, there are much better ways of dealing with chatty cathy's on their cell phones.
PS. to the guy getting slow Internet, you should consider buying a DOCSIS 3 modem online, and installing it yourself. Two reasons: if you currently have a DOCSIS 2 modem, you *may* get better performance from the more recent technology, EVEN if your provider uses DOCSIS 2. Second, most of us pay a $7/mo lease for our cable modem, where if you buy it once for $90, you can save money.
I have a brand new Motorola SURFboard SB6121 modem I bought for $70. Didn't help much.
Just checking... are you sure you're not confusing bytes with bits
Doubtful. Most companies advertise Mbps and most speedcheck sites do the same. Even so, most companies also advertise "up-to" and from personal experience, my ISP advertised "up-to" 50 Mbps for my $73.00 a month connection fee, and I am lucky if I get 15 Mbps sustained (I just got 18.88 Mbps when I checked now.) I am lucky if I get above 10 Mbps at night or on the weekend...oversubscribed lines and all (remember, cable is a shared medium.) For the first couple milliseconds, I get 50 Mbps, but then it drops way down. Most of the speedcheck sites show that my connection is average for my ISP, at 15 Mbps, even though they promise up to 50 Mbps.
They finally figured out what DEFCON and the other hacker conventions have known for a number of years?
Hell, wall of sheep is all they need to prove that the "good guys" aren't good at computer security. Most of wall of sheep is folks trolling, but there still are an awful lot of unencrypted SMTP/POP3 traffic at any of those conferences going to .mil and .gov servers.
Actually, plenty of police agencies do this already and find it effective to some extent. But it has to be paired with actual enforcement obviously.
In So. Cal., PDs use speed carts and electronic speed radar signs to do the same thing with varying success. People still speed by them, but most people do slow down. Supposedly the carts in our city have cameras, but they aren't actually used for enforcement, but to protect the carts. A couple new carts actually have flashing blue and red lights which blink when the car goes too fast by the cart, but I noticed that they removed them after a couple times I saw them, probably because of the distraction and/or the legal issues surrounding red lights on vehicles not complying with the CVC.
BTW, is driving with tinted like that windows legal in Frisco?
I am not that familiar with Texas motor vehicle laws, but I suspect like other states, it is only illegal for commoners. Police officers, commercial vehicle operators (taxi/private transportation,) and government officials are likely exempt either by the law or by professional courtesy.
Someone holding up a sign warning of a speed trap, or a person who has purchased a radar detector?
Radar Detectors are legal in most states (Washington DC and Vermont being the two exceptions.) Radar Jammers are illegal federally and Laser Jammers in quite a few states.
If your radar detector only receives signals and alerts you, it is perfectly safe to have except in those two places. The problem is that some of the devices out there called radar detectors do some sort of jamming, where they send signals back to the radar device that attempt to confuse it.
yep, there are always idiotic cowards willing to give away my freedoms and security
FTFY. There is absolutely no security value to stopping these things, even if they are real bullets (with powder and priming cap, which is highly doubtful since I am quite sure the manufacturer who applies the acrylic doesn't want anything to do with live bullets when subjected to hot acrylic,) and the only security danger posed by stopping a whole line of travelers at the TSA checkpoint over this is the added risk of having a large number of people in a kill-zone for an extended period of time.
If you really have a problem with them in luggage, treat them like full water bottles and snow-globes (or cupcakes) and have the traveler leave the line to find a post office to send the item, or throw it away.
Logic and reason...the TSA has proven time and time again they have neither of these skills.