They already know their credit card is stored on Google Wallet. You don't really get much choice in that matter But putting in a password in-app means unlocking their wallet, not authorizing a one-time payment. That part is what's unclear.
But following the logic chain that ultimately results in the parents being responsible either way, it's still fraudulent to expect the money refunded. If this loophole were formalized, then a parent will just route major purchases through their child and then dispute them.
If a company gives a child a CC, then that's their problem. The parent gave the kid a CC.
The way the phone's software is configured, the parents have authorized more than the initial purchase. The password was to unlock the wallet. The password wasn't to unlock the purchase.
Following your logic chain, the store would have no legal recourse in the case of fraud than to go after the child. Since the child is a minor the financial responsibility falls back on you again. Plus court costs.
The fact is, the parent can't revoke authorization for future in-app purchases after authorizing one. This is something that should be addressed. It has led to sleazy app developers taking advantage of them. It's a trojan horse.
Parents are responsible, yes. And they want a viable option to use that responsibility.
Think more of a 5 year old or younger. A lot of these games have points or virtual currency of their own - and you can earn that in-game as well. So when something "costs" it's sometimes real and sometimes fake in an attempt to confuse someone at a younger age.
A mantra doesn't make fact. I'm looking at current power densities and current power usage. But yes - one state on each coast would do it. Not the coast of the coastal state.
You're off by a factor of 10 if the density of the 800MW wind farm is anywhere close to the ideal density. 60,000 km^2 would equal the US generating capacity (and doesn't approach world generating capacity).
There is a limit to how close together you can put wind generators. Not to mention the effect they have on buffering storms and affecting rainfall. And spacing them further apart actually increases efficiency: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
The largest wind farm in the U.S. gets 800MW into 36 square KM. To hit 1.2TW at that density (our current national generating capacity), that would require more than half the landmass of Oregon - not just the coast. And if you're using Florida for redundancy, it would require 90% of the entire state's landmass. Not just the coast.
Then get a loan and start buying land. If it's as viable as you say it is, you'll be so successful that you'll put the coal plants out of business. I can't believe you're the first person to think of it.
You would have to wait until you own them all before you shut them down. But by announcing this plan, you can guarantee some won't sell. Considering there are trillions of dollars worth of coal reserves tied up in those mines, a $50 billion sale would be very short-sighted.
I just assumed that they were lumping corporate losses and corporate store profits to make the overall loss look smaller.
This is also assuming that their corporate stores are actually profitable if examined separately from the company as a whole. I don't know if that's actually true or not.
Just a guess, but this means that corporate is not getting enough in franchise fees to actually support their operations. The locations remain profitable, while the costs are passed on and charged as a loss to corporate and its stores.
What about web sites with fake/invalid certificates? On a MITM-proxied connection, the user sees a trusted certificate instead. That's not protecting you - it gives a false sense of security in situations when the user should be wary.
What about web sites with fake/invalid certificates already? On a MITM-proxied connection, the user sees a trusted certificate instead. This might be counterproductive in protecting the users.
They were already losing their core demographic when they switched....but it was a terribly short-sighted move. They are one of many businesses that didn't really give much thought on what would happen when cell phones hit their saturation point. I think Radio Shack was the hardest hit by the move since they have a lot more retail space than small cellular shops.
I agree. And the same for my next car. I don't think they're all that hard to remove. It's a reciprocity thing. When they get a car in on trade, they want to take off the other dealer's logo and put on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
The sheep or the light?
They already know their credit card is stored on Google Wallet. You don't really get much choice in that matter But putting in a password in-app means unlocking their wallet, not authorizing a one-time payment. That part is what's unclear.
Fuck your crotch fruit.
That's definitely NOT child-proof. Your chances of having a child are GREATLY increased.
But following the logic chain that ultimately results in the parents being responsible either way, it's still fraudulent to expect the money refunded. If this loophole were formalized, then a parent will just route major purchases through their child and then dispute them.
If a company gives a child a CC, then that's their problem. The parent gave the kid a CC.
The way the phone's software is configured, the parents have authorized more than the initial purchase. The password was to unlock the wallet. The password wasn't to unlock the purchase.
Following your logic chain, the store would have no legal recourse in the case of fraud than to go after the child. Since the child is a minor the financial responsibility falls back on you again. Plus court costs.
No - the child would be committing fraud. If you want to put your kid in jail, I guess that's your thing.
The fact is, the parent can't revoke authorization for future in-app purchases after authorizing one. This is something that should be addressed. It has led to sleazy app developers taking advantage of them. It's a trojan horse.
Parents are responsible, yes. And they want a viable option to use that responsibility.
Think more of a 5 year old or younger. A lot of these games have points or virtual currency of their own - and you can earn that in-game as well. So when something "costs" it's sometimes real and sometimes fake in an attempt to confuse someone at a younger age.
A mantra doesn't make fact. I'm looking at current power densities and current power usage. But yes - one state on each coast would do it. Not the coast of the coastal state.
You're off by a factor of 10 if the density of the 800MW wind farm is anywhere close to the ideal density. 60,000 km^2 would equal the US generating capacity (and doesn't approach world generating capacity).
There is a limit to how close together you can put wind generators. Not to mention the effect they have on buffering storms and affecting rainfall. And spacing them further apart actually increases efficiency: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
The largest wind farm in the U.S. gets 800MW into 36 square KM. To hit 1.2TW at that density (our current national generating capacity), that would require more than half the landmass of Oregon - not just the coast. And if you're using Florida for redundancy, it would require 90% of the entire state's landmass. Not just the coast.
Then get a loan and start buying land. If it's as viable as you say it is, you'll be so successful that you'll put the coal plants out of business. I can't believe you're the first person to think of it.
You would have to wait until you own them all before you shut them down. But by announcing this plan, you can guarantee some won't sell. Considering there are trillions of dollars worth of coal reserves tied up in those mines, a $50 billion sale would be very short-sighted.
I think you mean lossless. Or it wouldn't be a very good backup plan.
tl;dr, Firefox is MPL.
I wish I had mod points. Thank you.
I just assumed that they were lumping corporate losses and corporate store profits to make the overall loss look smaller.
This is also assuming that their corporate stores are actually profitable if examined separately from the company as a whole. I don't know if that's actually true or not.
The labor cost of creating this second master image with Firefox had to be paid for - split between BOTH people who actually paid for this.
Just a guess, but this means that corporate is not getting enough in franchise fees to actually support their operations. The locations remain profitable, while the costs are passed on and charged as a loss to corporate and its stores.
What about web sites with fake/invalid certificates? On a MITM-proxied connection, the user sees a trusted certificate instead. That's not protecting you - it gives a false sense of security in situations when the user should be wary.
What about web sites with fake/invalid certificates already? On a MITM-proxied connection, the user sees a trusted certificate instead. This might be counterproductive in protecting the users.
And Google automatically points all search users to https pages if both are available. In addition to Google itself redirecting to https.
They were already losing their core demographic when they switched....but it was a terribly short-sighted move. They are one of many businesses that didn't really give much thought on what would happen when cell phones hit their saturation point. I think Radio Shack was the hardest hit by the move since they have a lot more retail space than small cellular shops.
They were talking about, e.g., a capacitor. How can they make a profit with free home delivery?
Then again, that's why he's RichMan's, and not PRMan.
I agree. And the same for my next car. I don't think they're all that hard to remove. It's a reciprocity thing. When they get a car in on trade, they want to take off the other dealer's logo and put on their own.