The same objection would not apply to Ebay's own toolbar. Ebay's own toolbar doesn't violate their own ToS because they have their own permission to do so (as stated in the ToS).
In other words, you're accessing their content without accessing their site, which is a violation of their ToS. This is theft. They will accordingly code their site to block any access from this new "toolbar".
All you who think MythTV is the answer need to take a class called Econ101. If everybody used MythTV to skip commercials, there would be no revenue generated as a result of those TV shows, and hence no shows at all.
But let me guess the replies. YOUR time is too valuable to be wasted by commercials. You should get the show for free while everybody else has to watch the commercials and support the sponsors.
Brazil will save $30 million this year by purchasing the generic, compared with $42.9 million it would otherwise pay Merck.
Brazil will spend 4.2 billion reais ($2.07 billion) on the purchase of all medicines this year, which accounts for 12 percent of the ministry's total budget, Temporao said.
This is a drop in the bucket for Brazil's budget. By satisfying their short term budget needs, they have seriously jeopardized the incentive of pharmaceutical companies to produce useful drugs over the long term.
But laptop users who spent extra money on powerful laptops to handle the graphics requirements of Vista and the Aero interface are forced to run the aesthetic equivalent of Vista Basic, the low-cost version of Vista, if they care about battery life.
So the man walks in and says "I'd like to speak to the manager and file a complaint."
The salesperson behind the counter asks what the problem is.
The man says "Well my cake is gone."
The salesperson says "What did you do with it after we sold it to you?"
Issue 1: SecurID is not even full proof currently. Why? Well, hacker sets up a fake form and asks you to enter in your information + your passcode. Well, since you just filled out a fake form, you haven't actually registered to the server as using your passcode. The hacker can then quickly (in near real-time) reuse your information and passcode. This is how SecurID is currently successfully attacked. This is another plus for smart cards for now
I think the basic idea is to prevent fraudulent purchases by requiring the purchaser to have the physical card. Many people are victims to credit card theft without having their physical card stolen from their possession. This feature will all but eliminate that. A fishing attempt that accesses your bank account in real time probably still can't even do much... In order to change any account information, a confirmation link should be sent to the account owner's email address. Maybe likewise for transferring money. Put a 60-second delay on sending the confirmation link, and by that time the SecurID code has changed. Then you need to enter a new SecurID code to confirm the account change/transaction.
But as for entering your account password, I'm pretty sure that even Joe Schmoe knows that when making an online purchase, all the merchant needs is your name, address, credit card number and now SecurID code. The user should be told by the bank that no merchant will ever require your bank account password. Better yet, this could be WRITTEN on the card itself next to the SecurID key, e.g. "Never give your account password to a merchant. Never enter your account password into a Bank of WTF hyperlink. Only type 'www.bankofwtf.com' manually into your address bar to access your account."
When it says "Nothing in this Act shall apply to", that doesn't mean "the following is legal". It means, "Nothing is in the books about the following as far as this bill is concerned".
So if an existing Federal or state law specifically mentions that a provider or software vendor may never access your computer under any circumstance, then that law will supercede this bill.
The argument that all businesses need to keep their data organized is not a valid counter-argument. Of course corporate data needs to be filed away in an organized and neat matter, and is worth spending the time/money to do so, because you need efficient access to the data to stay in business. THE DIFFERENCE is that the data gets organized such that multiple people will have access to the data. Hence, there needs to be a common logical organization to the data and that must be followed religiously.
On the other hand, the only person who needs access to my personal papers is me. So they get dumped into piles (seemingly randomly to other people), when in fact I'm able to find them pretty quickly (financial papers are near the window under the stack of CDs, etc). As long as this system works for me, then there is no problem.
Oh, and for the record, I'm a database administrator at work. I'm a slob at the personal level, but I know the importance of having OUR data organized efficiently and logically (normalized) such that OTHER people are able to find the information quickly themselves.
Yahoo! News is not a news agency. They have no reporters. They have a license to publish news reported by various news agencies, such as the AP, Reuters, NYT, etc.
This particular article was reported by AP Business (Seth Sutel). The page even has the Associated Press logo at the top right.
Thanks for un-correcting me. On page 3 of the PDF, it says clearly:
Group Name Key characteristics
1 Role playing Played a role, given no indication that security is focus of study
2 Security primed Played a role, told that their role was concerned about security
3 Personal account Used their own account, given no indication that security is focus of study
1U2 All role playing The union of groups 1 & 2: all of the participants who played a role
Table 1. Participants were assigned to one of three groups.
Participants in the first two groups were also given a
second sheet containing all of the information they needed
to login and to complete tasks. This information included
the role's name, online ID (username), password, siteauthentication
image, three challenge questions, and answers
to those challenge questions.
Participants assigned to Group 3, the personal risk group,
were asked to perform tasks using their own bank account.
The artical submitter does not differentiate these groups when stating the statistics.
While I don't have anything against their methodology, I think the results from both role playing groups are completely meaningless. Why would you be concerned with protecting a username and password that obviously is fake since it was given to you by the testers? I always check things like HTTPS indicators, but I wouldn't have hesitated for a second to enter somebody else's username/password during a study.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
Compared to the neo geo, the PS3 is a flippin bargain.
The same objection would not apply to Ebay's own toolbar. Ebay's own toolbar doesn't violate their own ToS because they have their own permission to do so (as stated in the ToS).
No encryption or security was bypassed so it is not a DCMA violation. However, it does directly violate the ToS of their website:
t .html
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreemen
In other words, you're accessing their content without accessing their site, which is a violation of their ToS. This is theft. They will accordingly code their site to block any access from this new "toolbar".
It has a function list built-in sorted by function type.
/ qb-win-03-diff.png
Screenshot (lower right):
http://www.mysql.com/products/tools/query-browser
Then if you double-click the function it brings up a popup telling you the full usage + description.
All you who think MythTV is the answer need to take a class called Econ101. If everybody used MythTV to skip commercials, there would be no revenue generated as a result of those TV shows, and hence no shows at all.
But let me guess the replies. YOUR time is too valuable to be wasted by commercials. You should get the show for free while everybody else has to watch the commercials and support the sponsors.
This is a drop in the bucket for Brazil's budget. By satisfying their short term budget needs, they have seriously jeopardized the incentive of pharmaceutical companies to produce useful drugs over the long term.
So the man walks in and says "I'd like to speak to the manager and file a complaint."
The salesperson behind the counter asks what the problem is.
The man says "Well my cake is gone."
The salesperson says "What did you do with it after we sold it to you?"
The man replies "I ate it. Why?"
1. Rename "Junior Customer Service Representative" to "CEO's Executive Assistant"
:(
2. ???
3. Profit
4. Load-up the headline so it grossly conflicts with TFA.
5. Slashdot it!
6. Get modded down
I think the basic idea is to prevent fraudulent purchases by requiring the purchaser to have the physical card. Many people are victims to credit card theft without having their physical card stolen from their possession. This feature will all but eliminate that. A fishing attempt that accesses your bank account in real time probably still can't even do much... In order to change any account information, a confirmation link should be sent to the account owner's email address. Maybe likewise for transferring money. Put a 60-second delay on sending the confirmation link, and by that time the SecurID code has changed. Then you need to enter a new SecurID code to confirm the account change/transaction.
But as for entering your account password, I'm pretty sure that even Joe Schmoe knows that when making an online purchase, all the merchant needs is your name, address, credit card number and now SecurID code. The user should be told by the bank that no merchant will ever require your bank account password. Better yet, this could be WRITTEN on the card itself next to the SecurID key, e.g. "Never give your account password to a merchant. Never enter your account password into a Bank of WTF hyperlink. Only type 'www.bankofwtf.com' manually into your address bar to access your account."
When it says "Nothing in this Act shall apply to", that doesn't mean "the following is legal". It means, "Nothing is in the books about the following as far as this bill is concerned".
So if an existing Federal or state law specifically mentions that a provider or software vendor may never access your computer under any circumstance, then that law will supercede this bill.
Or am I missing something?
I think I read the very same article that you did out of Time magazine.
Not only is this not a joke, but it's been around for 5 years. God forbid people know what they're doing before tagging stuff!
2 /06/53302
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/200
The argument that all businesses need to keep their data organized is not a valid counter-argument. Of course corporate data needs to be filed away in an organized and neat matter, and is worth spending the time/money to do so, because you need efficient access to the data to stay in business. THE DIFFERENCE is that the data gets organized such that multiple people will have access to the data. Hence, there needs to be a common logical organization to the data and that must be followed religiously.
On the other hand, the only person who needs access to my personal papers is me. So they get dumped into piles (seemingly randomly to other people), when in fact I'm able to find them pretty quickly (financial papers are near the window under the stack of CDs, etc). As long as this system works for me, then there is no problem.
Oh, and for the record, I'm a database administrator at work. I'm a slob at the personal level, but I know the importance of having OUR data organized efficiently and logically (normalized) such that OTHER people are able to find the information quickly themselves.
Yahoo! News is not a news agency. They have no reporters. They have a license to publish news reported by various news agencies, such as the AP, Reuters, NYT, etc.
This particular article was reported by AP Business (Seth Sutel). The page even has the Associated Press logo at the top right.
Not very difficult.
While I don't have anything against their methodology, I think the results from both role playing groups are completely meaningless. Why would you be concerned with protecting a username and password that obviously is fake since it was given to you by the testers? I always check things like HTTPS indicators, but I wouldn't have hesitated for a second to enter somebody else's username/password during a study.
I'm going to be pissed if I have to change every individual light bulb on my Christmas lights.