They'll either be completely different, or perfectly matching.
Except, if you're watching on a Digital service, your picture will be delayed by between 1 and 4 seconds depending on the electronics at your end. (Longer if it's me watching ITV as I always pause the programme for ten minutes at the start so I can skip through the timeshifted ads... ;-D)
Radar Detector Detectors pick up the radiated IF signal radiated by the detector. Some detectors are more difficult to pick up due to pains taken by makers to limit this radiated energy
Er... duh! Radar Detectors work by blasting you with energy so they can see the reflection - Radar Detector Detectors detect this energy and set off an alarm. There's no "IF", no faffing about with "shielding"...
It's a nice theory, Jeff, but not the one I was told when I was in the process of failing my BSc in Electronic and Electrical Engineering...
Basically, they were far more simple setups. They "listened out" for the vertical frequency of the scan coils in a tube TV, which you could pretty much pick up with a coil of wire and a diode. This was fed into an oscilloscope and compared to off-the-air signals to determine which channel was being watched. (There was a phase variance between the channels) The two antennae on the van were used to "triangulate" over a short distance to tell whether the TV was in the front or back of the house - it was assumed, when the vans were designed, that all TV sets would be on the ground floor.
All of that worked, back in the days of VHF TV. When UHF came out they still told you where the TV was, but the equipment in the van could no longer tune a reference signal and so they lost the ability to knock on your door and tell you what you had been watching. But this didn't seem to reduce the effectiveness of the vans, so they let that slide...
Nowadays, the best they can tell you is that someone is running a "tube" screen in the house, and whether it's refreshing at mains frequency. With the rise in popularity of flat screens they are functionally useless, but the psychological effect of driving them slowly up and down a street in the evening seems to be enough to justify the expense of keeping them on the road.
A friend of mine worked for the GPO ("General Post Office") who used to run this fleet of vans. Apparently, one of her least favourite jobs was sitting inside the almost-empty van (the equipment had been taken out some ten years earlier) on a plastic chair and cranking a little handle to make the antenna on the roof rotate as the driver drove slowly up and down a different few streets every night. The next day the Post Office that served those streets would get a huge boost in sales of TV licenses.
There was an online service I used once (literally) back around 2002. In 2003 they started sending me "Final notice - if you do nothing your account WILL EXPIRE in the next TWO WEEKS" emails.
Just out of inertia I did nothing. Guess what? It took over two and a half years for them to finally give up. Every week I got a notification that my account WOULD EXPIRE in TWO WEEKS.
Nothing ever expires; eventually they just misplace your data.
You'll find that AOL advertise the dialup as having an AOL mailbox. Either this means that he's paying for the email service with the dialup, in which case he has a... er... case, or they are using anticompetitive practices by highlighting one single free service over the range available and thus making themselves targets for a class action suit. Either way, AOL lose.
Should the guy really be using AOL for a business e-mail address? Probably not.
Depends who you ask. Any rational human being would say "No", but morons and, crucially AOL's marketing department would say "Yes". AOL market these services to businesses.
hoping for a massive lawsuit result against the company for daring to have part of a business model in place that they've had for a decade or more (I remember a conversation about this subject in the late 90s regarding AOL) - a bit harsh?
I'm particularly thinking about the part of the business model that relies on them not being transparent about this; it's hidden in the T&Cs, and there's no way short of CCing every mail to yourself that you can monitor what they're adding to your messages, and certainly no way you can stop an "inappropriate" contextual ad before it is sent.
For example, someone sending an email giving condolences on the death of a loved one could easily have an ad for a dating service included, or someone advising a friend to move to Linux could have a Windows ad tacked on the end.
I'm all for the business model remaining, if they gave you an option to preview (and veto) the ad they intend to attach, perhaps even to pay, say, 2p (4c) to omit the ad from a particular message. Until then, screw 'em.
But still, why continue to give them support instead of changing your email address?
Three reasons.
1) Sentimental. It was my first "proper" email address (back in 1999) and I'm quite attached to it. (It's no longer my "primary" address, though...)
2) Archival. From the outset I have maintained a "Kept for reference" folder, that now has several hundred emails with software unlock codes, forum passwords, warranty details etc., and there's no obvious way to archive those off easily without doing it one email at a time. I can't be @rsed.
3) Practical. For a number of years this was the address I had printed on business cards. I still (very occasionally) get contacted by people who didn't have their own email address when I gave them the card, and so I would have no way of contacting them to tell them that my address had changed.
As far as I can remember, they tried to "tempt" me with new T&Cs, offering "much more space". I refused to sign up as there was a clause that under the new T&Cs any email not accessed within 60 days would be automatically deleted and thus after two months my "archive" would have evaporated. I continue to use the account under the old Netscape T&Cs.
But it's *not* a frivolous suit. AOL could have been piggy-backing their ads on his business emails for years, and he wouldn't have found out unless he had reason to send an email to himself.
I use a free service from AOL (I don't want to - I had a Netscape account and they bought them over; I have hundreds of archived emails with no way to back them up and the netscape.net address has been given to many companies that I *want* to keep in touch with, so I'm kind of locked in...) and it was only when a friend didn't bother to delete the crap from a reply I discovered they were sending these ads out and making it sound like something *I* was recommending.
Has anyone seen this yet? If so, can they poste the name of the movie so we who are denied watching it can at least look it up on IMDB and see what we're missing.
Please...?
I read the summary and all the comments, yet I still have no idea what this movie is called! Everyone just refers to "...the movie..." - is that the official title, then?
So, you want to further disenfranchise those of us who choose not to be encumbered by a mobile 'phone?
Way out in the Scottish countryside it's far cheaper to put a 'phone booth in the middle of a moor than a mobile 'phone mast - it just needs a power hook-up and a single copper wire. In unpopulated areas it makes more sense than maintaining a base station that will go largely unused.
...until machine intelligence evolves to the point that a computer can doubt the veracity of its own input, it can be said to have a "good faith belief" in everything you tell it.
...that the company phrased the question as "have you purchased a product solely as a result of receiving an email advertising it?", in which case I would have to say "Yes". Then they just made the (erroneous) assumption that all emails advertising products are SPAM and produced the (bad) headline.
I get regular "weekly bargain" emails from two tech companies and one "office supplies" company; I frequently purchase items on deep reductions from them. I signed up for these emails after purchasing from these companies and confirming they were real and trustworthy. I would *never* buy something marketed by SPAMming.
On the post: Please Stop Telling Us How Many Emails Fit Under A Broadband Cap
But...
On the post: Judge Likely To Exclude Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Lawsuit
Re: ...is it a stretch?
On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret
Re: flickering glow...
Except, if you're watching on a Digital service, your picture will be delayed by between 1 and 4 seconds depending on the electronics at your end. (Longer if it's me watching ITV as I always pause the programme for ten minutes at the start so I can skip through the timeshifted ads... ;-D)
On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret
Re:
Er... duh! Radar Detectors work by blasting you with energy so they can see the reflection - Radar Detector Detectors detect this energy and set off an alarm. There's no "IF", no faffing about with "shielding"...
On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret
Re: Re: TV detector vans don't exist
Basically, they were far more simple setups. They "listened out" for the vertical frequency of the scan coils in a tube TV, which you could pretty much pick up with a coil of wire and a diode. This was fed into an oscilloscope and compared to off-the-air signals to determine which channel was being watched. (There was a phase variance between the channels) The two antennae on the van were used to "triangulate" over a short distance to tell whether the TV was in the front or back of the house - it was assumed, when the vans were designed, that all TV sets would be on the ground floor.
All of that worked, back in the days of VHF TV. When UHF came out they still told you where the TV was, but the equipment in the van could no longer tune a reference signal and so they lost the ability to knock on your door and tell you what you had been watching. But this didn't seem to reduce the effectiveness of the vans, so they let that slide...
Nowadays, the best they can tell you is that someone is running a "tube" screen in the house, and whether it's refreshing at mains frequency. With the rise in popularity of flat screens they are functionally useless, but the psychological effect of driving them slowly up and down a street in the evening seems to be enough to justify the expense of keeping them on the road.
On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret
The inside scoop
On the post: Dear Verizon: I Haven't Been An MCI Customer In Four Years
Re:
On the post: Dear Verizon: I Haven't Been An MCI Customer In Four Years
Apropos to nothing...
Just out of inertia I did nothing. Guess what? It took over two and a half years for them to finally give up. Every week I got a notification that my account WOULD EXPIRE in TWO WEEKS.
Nothing ever expires; eventually they just misplace your data.
On the post: AOL Sued For Putting Ads In Email
Re: Re:
On the post: AOL Sued For Putting Ads In Email
Re: The guy may not win...
Depends who you ask. Any rational human being would say "No", but morons and, crucially AOL's marketing department would say "Yes". AOL market these services to businesses.
On the post: AOL Sued For Putting Ads In Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he wants 5 million for this!
I'm particularly thinking about the part of the business model that relies on them not being transparent about this; it's hidden in the T&Cs, and there's no way short of CCing every mail to yourself that you can monitor what they're adding to your messages, and certainly no way you can stop an "inappropriate" contextual ad before it is sent.
For example, someone sending an email giving condolences on the death of a loved one could easily have an ad for a dating service included, or someone advising a friend to move to Linux could have a Windows ad tacked on the end.
I'm all for the business model remaining, if they gave you an option to preview (and veto) the ad they intend to attach, perhaps even to pay, say, 2p (4c) to omit the ad from a particular message. Until then, screw 'em.
On the post: AOL Sued For Putting Ads In Email
Re: Re: Re: he wants 5 million for this!
Three reasons.
1) Sentimental. It was my first "proper" email address (back in 1999) and I'm quite attached to it. (It's no longer my "primary" address, though...)
2) Archival. From the outset I have maintained a "Kept for reference" folder, that now has several hundred emails with software unlock codes, forum passwords, warranty details etc., and there's no obvious way to archive those off easily without doing it one email at a time. I can't be @rsed.
3) Practical. For a number of years this was the address I had printed on business cards. I still (very occasionally) get contacted by people who didn't have their own email address when I gave them the card, and so I would have no way of contacting them to tell them that my address had changed.
As far as I can remember, they tried to "tempt" me with new T&Cs, offering "much more space". I refused to sign up as there was a clause that under the new T&Cs any email not accessed within 60 days would be automatically deleted and thus after two months my "archive" would have evaporated. I continue to use the account under the old Netscape T&Cs.
AOL Suck.
On the post: AOL Sued For Putting Ads In Email
Re: he wants 5 million for this!
I use a free service from AOL (I don't want to - I had a Netscape account and they bought them over; I have hundreds of archived emails with no way to back them up and the netscape.net address has been given to many companies that I *want* to keep in touch with, so I'm kind of locked in...) and it was only when a friend didn't bother to delete the crap from a reply I discovered they were sending these ads out and making it sound like something *I* was recommending.
I hope he wins and screws them royally.
On the post: Another Filmmaker Purposely Releases Film Online For Free
Still waiting...
On the post: Another Filmmaker Purposely Releases Film Online For Free
Am I being particularly dense...?
On the post: For Just The Cost Of A (Starbucks) Coffee A Day, You Could Save A Pay Phone Booth...
Re:
Way out in the Scottish countryside it's far cheaper to put a 'phone booth in the middle of a moor than a mobile 'phone mast - it just needs a power hook-up and a single copper wire. In unpopulated areas it makes more sense than maintaining a base station that will go largely unused.
On the post: Computers Don't Have Good Faith Beliefs
Of course...
On the post: Singer At New Media Conference Turns Off Audience Member Cameras
And, for the uninitiated,
On the post: 30% Of Internet Users Admit To Buying From Spam
It's quite possible...
I get regular "weekly bargain" emails from two tech companies and one "office supplies" company; I frequently purchase items on deep reductions from them. I signed up for these emails after purchasing from these companies and confirming they were real and trustworthy. I would *never* buy something marketed by SPAMming.
On the post: AT&T Says It May Inject Its Own Ads In Your Surfing... And You'll Like It
Re: How to tell if they are doing it?
Next >>