No. If they separate them out then the price will be lowered. Now, I'm sure you're thinking "fat chance", but if they still end up offering physical discs and codes separately, they will do a value proposition analysis for both of those and the old disc+code combo packs.
I don't know what the prices are now, but I can imagine:
The data isn't meaningfully encrypted. Anyone with physical access to the passport has the key to read it AND the data itself (name, date of birth, country, photo, etc.). The data is cryptographically signed by the country issuing the passport. That signature is the "cryptographic information" in question. The readers are failing to verify the signature.
The issue is that cryptographic signatures aren't verified for passports with chips. This only applies to passports from 38 countries. People coming in from Mexico aren't using passports with chips. For the 38 countries it does apply to, border and customs agents still verify a person's identity using the passport, the photo, and and person in front of them.
This fuck up makes the chip useless as anyone can put any data on there. You would still have to be able to make a convincing fake of a physical passport for a country on the list to get expedited entry.
I've been around a long time and I'm still surprised at how fucking stupid people are. So many people attacked my post for the completely wrong reasons when they could have spent 3 seconds to look at the math and have a laugh.
I did simple math. I got modded to -1, Troll by fucking shitlords like you who don't like simple fucking facts pointing out that their fucking doom and gloom climate change scenarios are utter fucking bullshit.
You would get far less than 1 inch of sea rise if all Antarctic ice melted. You would get less than 1 inch of sea rise if you COPIED all of Antarctic sea ice and melted it (leaving the original ice in place). Please demonstrate how that is not true. Use numbers.
Taking Earth as a sphere, its volume is 4/3 pi 3960^3 cubic miles. A 1 foot rise in sea level, assuming 100% of the planet was covered by ocean, would yield a volume of 4/3 pi 3960.75^3 cubic miles.
4/3 pi 3960.75^3 - 4/3 pi 3960^3 = 4/3 pi (3960.75^3 - 3960^3) = 147823591.42729045764684076422549 cubic miles. Multiply by 70% for the amount of surface the oceans cover and you get 103476513.99910332035278853495784 cubic miles.
Over 100 million cubic miles of additional sea water would be required to raise the level of the oceans a mere 12 inches. This ignores the additional surface area rising oceans would cover, and thus underestimates the volume of water necessary to raise the oceans a single foot.
All of Antarctica contains between 6 and 7 million cubic miles of ice. If it all melted today, we'd get less than an inch of sea level rise.
I didn't read TFS. This appears to not be caused by ads, but by the LA Times serving content from a fucking publicly-writable storage source. Wooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooow.
I have a new car with a backup camera. It's great for parking in tight spaces and not much else. The resolution and quality is too low for it to be of much use unless I'm staring at it intently. I'm not sure if this is due to the screen or the camera. It's also not very useful at night or when it gets moisture or dirt on it.
All I see is a chain a true statements throughout history. We do have a generation of people unhealthily addicted to mobile devices, social media, etc. We do have a generation of people unhealthily addicted to TV and video games. We did have a generation of people unhealthily addicted to radio and music.... We do increasingly rely on technology instead of our brains and hands. We are increasingly losing practical skills such as cooking, sewing, financial management, carpentry, remembering, thinking, etc.
Technology isn't inherently bad but reliance on it makes us weaker, especially as we outsource our control over it. We ultimately end up losing autonomy.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously. 18 USC 926(a) does give this anonymity from the federal government, but that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
You missed out the part about being "part of a well-regulated militia".
It's funny how rarely people who espouse the 2nd amendment (not necessarily you) include that.
You missed the part where that doesn't matter.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1: A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This is a statement of fact. You can disagree, but it doesn't matter.
2: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This explicitly defines keeping and bearing arms to be a right reserved for the people.
Part 2 does not depend on part 1, or your opinion of it.
The US Constitution defines powers and duties the federal government has. Everything else is reserved for the states or the people. Some things are explicitly called out as being rights of the people so individual states can't fuck them over. A good starting point for you would be the Bill of Rights.
That's because these morons have convinced themselves that if the shit hits the fan, the cops and the military will be on their side and not on the side that signs their paychecks.
The shit has only hit the fan on US soil a couple of times in US history. In both of those instances, civilians having guns was a major factor. In both of those instances, the populace was pretty split against itself. The police and the military are made of up people (for now). If shit hits the fan, they will not be unanimously devoted to a state waging war on its citizens. Further, members of the military take an oath to uphold the constitution, and that trumps "just following orders" even if you believe they're mindless robots.
Redbox tried to negotiate an agreement with Disney in which Redbox would get movies at a reduced price to rent out via their kiosks, possibly with a restriction on availability dates. Disney either told them to piss off or demanded so much money and such ridiculous delays from retail release that Redbox found it made more sense to just buy the retail Blurays themselves. When a new Disney Bluray comes out, Redbox sticks it in their kiosks for rental. For titles which have download codes included in the box, Redbox pulls the codes and sells them to anyone who wants to buy them.
Redbox rents out each physical disc as many times as possible. Redbox sells each download code one time.
In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.
Where is it written that you need a contract to sell something? Do I need a contract to buy a gallon of milk? No. I give the store money, and I walk out of the store with the milk to use as I see fit. Redbox gave Disney money, and Disney gave Redbox a DVD with a digital download code. Transaction is finished.
In law, you make a contract whenever you buy anything.
False. Stop repeating this bullshit. If that were even remotely true children wouldn't be able to buy a pack of gum in many instances.
A sale is a contract, perhaps the most basic kind of contract.
No, it isn't.
So let's look at how contract law applies.
Contracts are not laws. Laws are laws. Contracts are agreements which may or may not be legally enforceable.
And that intent is a critical component of a contract, in this case a sale contract. The term of art used by lawyers is "meeting of the minds". It means you can't accidentally sell something you didn't mean to sell. Either the seller and buyer agreed on what was being sold, or there was no sale at all.
A "meeting of the minds" is required for a contract. No TOS/EULA/clickwrap I've ever seen meets that description. Most gym membership agreements and other one-sided "contracts" don't even satisfy that requirement. If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds. So don't be surprised when a judge with a brain decides that your draconian terms or contract as a whole weren't really a contract. Case in point - this fucking case with Disney and Redbox.
No such "meeting of the minds" is required to purchase something as trivial as a movie on a disc, regardless of the wording you put on the package. I don't fill out and sign a long form when buying a movie, but I sure as fuck do when buying a car. Further, a typical sale would be an agreement between the seller and the buyer, not the manufacturer / publisher / copyright holder and the buyer. Disney doesn't have any hint of a contract in place until someone interacts with Disney to redeem that download code.
Disney wants to tie each code to the physical disc it was packaged with, but they're simply not in a position to do so. They're selling items to distributors who sell them to retailers who sell them to people who use/resell/gift/whatever them. They are far too removed from a legal standpoint and a practical standpoint to exert any control over what someone does with that product.
Are they lazy? Or is it because the wages for farmhands are so depressed due to the illegal work force that no one can do that job legitimates (with taxes, for example) and actually earn any money?
People will enter the stores WITHOUT cell phones, accounts, or other means of charging them or tracking their identity. People will remove items from the shelves in ways that CANNOT be tracked by the sensors.
And if you can't imagine how either of the above can be done, people will smash windows and raid the whole fucking place because they can.
If Amazon opens one of these stores up in an urban area, it will be hit on a regular basis. If Amazon ever truly makes these stores unmanned (the current test store has staff crawling all over), they won't even be able to get anyone on robbery charges, as robbery requires a human victim. They'd only ever be able to chase down lesser charges like theft and destruction of property.
Slashdot Mirror
No. If they separate them out then the price will be lowered.
Now, I'm sure you're thinking "fat chance", but if they still end up offering physical discs and codes separately, they will do a value proposition analysis for both of those and the old disc+code combo packs.
I don't know what the prices are now, but I can imagine:
Disc + Code = 30
Disc = 25
Code = 10
Good! I don't want to pay for a shitty download code. I want the full quality disc.
You're still missing it. Others have pointed it out. But plenty of people like yourself are just blind to it.
No, they don't.
The data isn't meaningfully encrypted. Anyone with physical access to the passport has the key to read it AND the data itself (name, date of birth, country, photo, etc.).
The data is cryptographically signed by the country issuing the passport.
That signature is the "cryptographic information" in question.
The readers are failing to verify the signature.
The issue is that cryptographic signatures aren't verified for passports with chips.
This only applies to passports from 38 countries. People coming in from Mexico aren't using passports with chips.
For the 38 countries it does apply to, border and customs agents still verify a person's identity using the passport, the photo, and and person in front of them.
This fuck up makes the chip useless as anyone can put any data on there.
You would still have to be able to make a convincing fake of a physical passport for a country on the list to get expedited entry.
I've been around a long time and I'm still surprised at how fucking stupid people are.
So many people attacked my post for the completely wrong reasons when they could have spent 3 seconds to look at the math and have a laugh.
1 mile is 5280 feet, so 1 extra foot is 5281. 5281/5280 * the radius of Earth = LOL.
You can do perfectly good science in cubic miles, as long as you don't confuse 0.75 miles with 12 inches = 1/5280 miles.
SOMEONE gets it!
It's like you don't even know what science is.
I did simple math. I got modded to -1, Troll by fucking shitlords like you who don't like simple fucking facts pointing out that their fucking doom and gloom climate change scenarios are utter fucking bullshit.
You would get far less than 1 inch of sea rise if all Antarctic ice melted. You would get less than 1 inch of sea rise if you COPIED all of Antarctic sea ice and melted it (leaving the original ice in place). Please demonstrate how that is not true. Use numbers.
Earth has a radius of about 3960 miles.
Taking Earth as a sphere, its volume is 4/3 pi 3960^3 cubic miles.
A 1 foot rise in sea level, assuming 100% of the planet was covered by ocean, would yield a volume of 4/3 pi 3960.75^3 cubic miles.
4/3 pi 3960.75^3 - 4/3 pi 3960^3 = 4/3 pi (3960.75^3 - 3960^3) = 147823591.42729045764684076422549 cubic miles. Multiply by 70% for the amount of surface the oceans cover and you get 103476513.99910332035278853495784 cubic miles.
Over 100 million cubic miles of additional sea water would be required to raise the level of the oceans a mere 12 inches.
This ignores the additional surface area rising oceans would cover, and thus underestimates the volume of water necessary to raise the oceans a single foot.
All of Antarctica contains between 6 and 7 million cubic miles of ice. If it all melted today, we'd get less than an inch of sea level rise.
Point 1 and 2 both stand. They just don't directly apply to the context of ads and this story (which didn't involve ads, but utter stupidity).
I didn't read TFS. This appears to not be caused by ads, but by the LA Times serving content from a fucking publicly-writable storage source. Wooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooow.
Like how they "unintentionally" point visitors to ads and scripts created by third parties.
If you're going to serve ads on your site, at least:
1 - Be responsible for them.
2 - Host them on your own domain.
Does that break the current webvertising model? GOOD!
I have a new car with a backup camera. It's great for parking in tight spaces and not much else. The resolution and quality is too low for it to be of much use unless I'm staring at it intently. I'm not sure if this is due to the screen or the camera. It's also not very useful at night or when it gets moisture or dirt on it.
All I see is a chain a true statements throughout history. ...
We do have a generation of people unhealthily addicted to mobile devices, social media, etc.
We do have a generation of people unhealthily addicted to TV and video games.
We did have a generation of people unhealthily addicted to radio and music.
We do increasingly rely on technology instead of our brains and hands.
We are increasingly losing practical skills such as cooking, sewing, financial management, carpentry, remembering, thinking, etc.
Technology isn't inherently bad but reliance on it makes us weaker, especially as we outsource our control over it. We ultimately end up losing autonomy.
"Stop reading and go out and play, you'll ruin your eyes".
My mother fell for it, my dad was harder to fool.
Nah, "you'll ruin your eyes" was the excuse they told kids. They were actually worried about the fact that you'll never get laid.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously. 18 USC 926(a) does give this anonymity from the federal government, but that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
You missed out the part about being "part of a well-regulated militia".
It's funny how rarely people who espouse the 2nd amendment (not necessarily you) include that.
You missed the part where that doesn't matter.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1: A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
This is a statement of fact. You can disagree, but it doesn't matter.
2: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This explicitly defines keeping and bearing arms to be a right reserved for the people.
Part 2 does not depend on part 1, or your opinion of it.
The US Constitution defines powers and duties the federal government has. Everything else is reserved for the states or the people. Some things are explicitly called out as being rights of the people so individual states can't fuck them over. A good starting point for you would be the Bill of Rights.
That's because these morons have convinced themselves that if the shit hits the fan, the cops and the military will be on their side and not on the side that signs their paychecks.
The shit has only hit the fan on US soil a couple of times in US history.
In both of those instances, civilians having guns was a major factor. In both of those instances, the populace was pretty split against itself.
The police and the military are made of up people (for now). If shit hits the fan, they will not be unanimously devoted to a state waging war on its citizens. Further, members of the military take an oath to uphold the constitution, and that trumps "just following orders" even if you believe they're mindless robots.
U R DUM
Redbox tried to negotiate an agreement with Disney in which Redbox would get movies at a reduced price to rent out via their kiosks, possibly with a restriction on availability dates.
Disney either told them to piss off or demanded so much money and such ridiculous delays from retail release that Redbox found it made more sense to just buy the retail Blurays themselves.
When a new Disney Bluray comes out, Redbox sticks it in their kiosks for rental. For titles which have download codes included in the box, Redbox pulls the codes and sells them to anyone who wants to buy them.
Redbox rents out each physical disc as many times as possible. Redbox sells each download code one time.
In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.
Where is it written that you need a contract to sell something? Do I need a contract to buy a gallon of milk? No. I give the store money, and I walk out of the store with the milk to use as I see fit. Redbox gave Disney money, and Disney gave Redbox a DVD with a digital download code. Transaction is finished.
In law, you make a contract whenever you buy anything.
False. Stop repeating this bullshit. If that were even remotely true children wouldn't be able to buy a pack of gum in many instances.
A sale is a contract, perhaps the most basic kind of contract.
No, it isn't.
So let's look at how contract law applies.
Contracts are not laws. Laws are laws. Contracts are agreements which may or may not be legally enforceable.
And that intent is a critical component of a contract, in this case a sale contract. The term of art used by lawyers is "meeting of the minds". It means you can't accidentally sell something you didn't mean to sell. Either the seller and buyer agreed on what was being sold, or there was no sale at all.
A "meeting of the minds" is required for a contract. No TOS/EULA/clickwrap I've ever seen meets that description. Most gym membership agreements and other one-sided "contracts" don't even satisfy that requirement. If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds. So don't be surprised when a judge with a brain decides that your draconian terms or contract as a whole weren't really a contract. Case in point - this fucking case with Disney and Redbox.
No such "meeting of the minds" is required to purchase something as trivial as a movie on a disc, regardless of the wording you put on the package. I don't fill out and sign a long form when buying a movie, but I sure as fuck do when buying a car. Further, a typical sale would be an agreement between the seller and the buyer, not the manufacturer / publisher / copyright holder and the buyer. Disney doesn't have any hint of a contract in place until someone interacts with Disney to redeem that download code.
Disney wants to tie each code to the physical disc it was packaged with, but they're simply not in a position to do so. They're selling items to distributors who sell them to retailers who sell them to people who use/resell/gift/whatever them. They are far too removed from a legal standpoint and a practical standpoint to exert any control over what someone does with that product.
Except hiring guards instead of cashiers is more expensive and defeats the entire purpose of having an unmanned store. And it won't prevent theft.
Are they lazy? Or is it because the wages for farmhands are so depressed due to the illegal work force that no one can do that job legitimates (with taxes, for example) and actually earn any money?
You are a fucking moron.
People will enter the stores WITHOUT cell phones, accounts, or other means of charging them or tracking their identity.
People will remove items from the shelves in ways that CANNOT be tracked by the sensors.
And if you can't imagine how either of the above can be done, people will smash windows and raid the whole fucking place because they can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But in this kind of store, it's literally impossible to shoplift because there are so many cameras monitoring product
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If Amazon opens one of these stores up in an urban area, it will be hit on a regular basis.
If Amazon ever truly makes these stores unmanned (the current test store has staff crawling all over), they won't even be able to get anyone on robbery charges, as robbery requires a human victim. They'd only ever be able to chase down lesser charges like theft and destruction of property.