Spam is junk mail sent COD without the option to refuse payment. The fact that the incremental cost per spam is tiny doesn't matter; it's not zero, and these people send a tremendous volume of messages. The fact that the protocols are effectively designed to allow abuse doesn't matter either, because taking advantage of an inherently broken system in an illegal manner is still illegal. Last, most spammers (judging by the contents of my junk mail folder) are engaging in fraud to various degrees, such as ads for "herbal viagra" to the enormous, like advertising for cheap mortgages (I'm sure those are just phishing schemes), illegal prescription drugs, pirated software, etc.
Spam is not legitimate advertising. All you have to do to realize this is compare spam with other advertising. Normal advertising makes it very clear that it is, in fact, advertising, it clearly indicates the product being advertised, and it clearly indicates the organization doing the advertising. Spam, on the other hand, actively tries to disguise itself as personal e-mail, actively hides its source by doing things like forging e-mail headers, and often actively hides the product it is advertising by merely providing a link to a web site with no explanation of what it is. If spam really were legitimate advertising, spammers would not be doing any of this.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the non-SSL Yahoo login has always used a JavaScripted MD5 challenge-response mechanism that protects you from sniffing. It won't protect you from a DNS spoofer the way SSL will, but a passive sniffer can't get your password even over the "standard" login.
Unless it can burn one down from boost phase, all it'll do is make funny fallout patterns from any thing w/a NBC warhead somewhere in friendly(ish)territory.
Because there's no real difference between spreading a few pounds of radioactive material over the countryside, and destroying a city of ten million people with a nuclear blast.
And if someone's going to be tossing those, I think they'll be able to target the flying radar reflector aka a 747.
A 747 with a laser capable of knocking targets out of the sky at a range of hundreds of miles sounds like the easiest target in the world!
As the other posters have stated, no mirror is 100% reflective. At these power levels, with physically realistic materials, the leading edge of the laser pulse will vaporise a very thin layer off the top of the reflective surface. This vapor will be heated to plasma, and this plasma will be almost completely opaque. So this thin layer that gets blasted off the surface ends up absorbing the light as it comes in, before it can be reflected by the mirrored surface. This ends up heating the surface more, as the plasma expands and gets blown back towards it, vaporising even more material, and in short order you have a nice hole into your fuel tank and the missile is starting to explode. This all happens incredibly fast with these pulsed lasers, and that's why mirroring or spinning the missile won't help much.
Hmm, an airplane with an incredibly powerful laser in the belly, capable of hitting a tiny spot over a range of a couple of hundred miles.... Yes, attacking that should be a piece of cake! You go first, I'll follow.
And if I've read things correctly, a dirty suitcase nuke won't do much more than contaminate the building it goes off in, and people living nearby won't be getting any more additional radiation than somebody who lives in Denver.
Dirty bombs are not physical weapons, they are psychological weapons. Their actual radiological effects are effectively nil. They only work because of people's irrational fears.
The series is already one of the more genre-busting SF stories out there. It started out as a radio play, was done as a series of books, a TV miniseries, a text adventure game, and finally another radio play. Making a movie hardly seems worse than any of the other transitions.
In case you're stuck with the idea that Doug Adams wrote the books and everything else was just trying to make a buck with cheap work, it started as a radio play, and Adams has had a hand in every adaptation to date, including this new movie. (Yes, he's dead, but that doesn't seem to stop him.)
That is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There is a legal, implicit warranty with any commercial transaction. If you read through the GPL, you'll find a section that talks about "the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose", that's what it's talking about. The GPL can get away with disclaiming this implied warranty because no money changes hands, but Gamestop is selling a product so they must honor it.
The point I'm trying to make is that if Gamestop sells you a defective X-box, then they are legally obligated to fix it, exchange it, or refund you if you ask them to. It's not just bad for business if they don't, it's illegal. It comes down to whether "banned from Live" qualifies an X-box as defective. I would argue that it does, but it's not completely clear either way.
But they are willing and able to do exactly that.. and it only takes one suitably equipped suicide terrorist to do the job.
Killing everybody onboard is not the realm of hijacking, so it's not part of the subject being discussed. There are many easier ways to kill everybody on board an airliner than getting a bunch of guys inside it with guns.
I don't think they are too concerned that passengers will get frisky and try to stop them.. they will kill any that bother them and then kill the rest after anyway.
That worked three times. The fourth time it mostly failed. (The airliner crashed, but the airliner's target wasn't hit.) The only reason it was "mostly" is because the passengers didn't find out that the calculus of hijacking has changed until the situation was controlled by the hijackers. Now people will make their move as soon as a hijacking attempt becomes apparent.
If they are able to get on the plane, then its all over no matter what.. best that can be hoped for is that less people are killed on the ground as well.
Do you really think that five guys armed with box cutters are going to be able to kill a plane full of people with nothing to lose? Or two guys armed with guns? It's not going to happen. Notice how many successful hijackings there have been in the last three years. Notice how every time somebody tries something weird, he's tackled by his compatriots and tied up. The hijackers will always be significantly outnumbered, and no weapon you can get through security with any degree of reliability will let you win against those odds, especially against people who are backed into a corner.
The era of airliner hijackings is over. Before, everybody knew that if you just kept your head down and acted docile, you would live through a hijacking. You might be stuck on the plane for a while until things worked out, but your chances of survival were very good. Thus everybody stayed quiet and let the hijackers do what they want.
Now, everybody knows that if you don't do anything, you will die. People faced with certain death become very motivated. No hijacking will be able to take place now unless the hijackers have significant numbers compared to the passengers, are very well-armed, and are willing to kill most people on board. That simply isn't going to happen. My best way to stay safe on an airliner is to be on a plane filled with bad motherfuckers who won't be afraid to rush the terrorists when they try to take over. The TSA isn't trying to protect us from hijackings, they're simply trying to expand.
I've never met a European who isn't incredibly shocked at how unbelievably cold it gets during winter in Wisconsin. This despite the fact that most of Europe is further north than Wisconsin. Now, I've never met any Scandinavians, but everybody I've met from Germany and Poland have never even imagined wind chills of -80F. Proximity to the ocean makes a huge difference.
The last part of the game felt like I was playing through a scene from some zombie flick. Zombies everywhere, and I was just mowing through them with my Boomstick. God I love that gun.
Seems like the Mac fluffy bunny syndrome has attacked.
Yeah, no way could I have made my choice based on merit, huh?
Stanaphone does not charge a monthly fee, nor does gafachi, simpletelecom, voipjet, and others.
I never said they did. I said that none of the ones that didn't charge a monthly fee actually had a rates page available anywhere, that I could find.
A 'dumb toy' means something that looks nice and is hyped professionally, which duplicates things that already exist that work as well, or better, and at lower cost, and with open protocols with numerous competing open and closed client, server and provider options.
Cut the crap and just state the thing you really care about: Skype is a proprietary protocol. It's obvious you don't care about anything else. You flat out stated above that having lots of competition is good for an open protocol ("numerous competing... options" being stated as a good thing) but not for a closed protocol ("duplicates things that already exist" being stated as a bad thing).
Guess what? Some people don't give a crap whether it's open or closed. We care about ease of use, price, and things like that. You have yet to demonstrate that your proposed solution wins on any of those.
Yes, I realize this conversation started out with me having the misconception that no open voice-to-phone solutions existed, but you seem to have decided to turn it into an attack against Skype. Given that, I don't have to show that Skype is better, I just have to show that it's just as good.
The 'Walled Garden' environment favoured by Mac heads is doomed.
The entire OS is based on open standards. I can run most open-source software written for a POSIX environment. The most common trait among Mac users is wanting things to Just Work. When an open-source program is the right tool for the job, such as when it comes to hacking lisp, instant messaging, network sniffing, or any number of other tasks, I use open source software. When it comes to making phone calls from my computer, I choose Skype, because it Just Works and I see no downside. "Looks nice" is a bonus, not a downside.
Restating your point without supporting it is not really getting us anywhere.
Stanaphone (not my #1 favorite, but it is easy) costs at http://www.stanaphone.com/whatsstana/
As I noted in a followup, this page doesn't work in Safari. Breaking their rates page in the most popular Mac browser doesn't seem like a good sign. Of course, Skype's order page is broken under Safari's default cookie policy. Skype is certainly not perfect, but it seems pretty nice.
I discovered that Stanaphone's rates page simply doesn't like Safari. It works fine in FireFox.
They charge 2 cents a minute to the US and France, or 20 cents a minute to a cell phone in France. They charge 3 cents a minute to China.
At the today's exchange rate, Skype charges 2.2 cents a minute to the US and France, 21 cents a minute to a cell phone in France, and 2.8 cents a minute to China.
Skype looks pretty competitive to me based on its rates. Are there VoIP providers out there that are significantly cheaper than this?
No monthly fee. Runs on Mac. Does not require propellor beanie. As an extra bonus, you can receive calls, too.
There are MANY clients out there, I prefer IAXcomm (good on Mac/Linux/Wincrap). An 'easier' one is probably SJPhone (also Mac/Wincrap).
http://www.sjlabs.com/sjp.html
SJPhone and IAXcomm both look like they were coughed up by somebody's cat, but that doesn't mean they won't work, of course.
IAXcomm just died when I quit it. Not encouraging.
Easiest service is probably Stanaphone, you'll get a New York inbound number, and cheap outbound.
They don't seem to want to tell me how much they charge. Their rates page has no rates. They also don't seem to do international calls, which isn't very useful. Do you know how much they charge?
For outbound-only, you have many choices.
This list is not complete, but it's plenty. http://www.broadbandreports.com/isplist?t =voip
I couldn't find anybody in that list that actually listed rates and didn't charge a monthly fee. I gave up after looking at about ten, though, so it's entirely possible there's a provider out there with a web site that doesn't suck that doesn't charge a monthly fee.
Well, there's one: Skype. Maybe there are more.
Skype is a dumb toy that is very well-marketed.
What makes Skype "a dumb toy"? It works, doesn't it? It's reasonably cheap. It's cross-platform. They don't do incoming calls yet, but that doesn't seem to bother you too much. Is this another one of those things where you hate it because it's successful, or is there a better reason?
Do they charge monthly fees? If so, then they will be more expensive than SkypeOut for me no matter how cheap their per-minute rate is, because of my extremely small calling volume.
Can I install this software on my computer? I have a Mac.
Those were the only two issues I stated, but there was a third that I failed to state: can I get this all up and running in less than an hour? I don't want to have to do a lot of work for something that can be point-and-click simple.
Congratulations! You've discovered the Slashdot theme! For anybody watching from the sidelines, the Slashdot theme is, "It's not useful to me, therefore it's not useful to anybody." Well done!
That is a false dichotomy. There are other possibilities, such as applying standards of process perfection that are easily reachable in the real world, such as requiring a verifiable paper trail. The rest of the civilized democratic world manages to do this without a great deal of unnecessary pain and expense, why not us?
Re:Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Now I'm not saying Halo's story was on par for the Godfather or anything like that, but for an FPS, there really was no cohesive equal.
You, sir, have obviously never played Marathon. Now there was a story that got you involved, that sucked you in, chewed you up, and spit you out. Halo's story is but the barest shadow of Marathon's. (Almost literally, since they were both done by the same people.) Marathon is full of hope, struggle, mystery, betrayal, revenge, and ambiguity, and all of this was achieved without a single cutscene or line of recorded dialog more complex than, "Thank god it's you!"
Ahh, Bungie, how the mighty have fallen. Not to say that Halo isn't good, I enjoy it quite a bit, but I wonder if Bungie will ever manage to match their achievement in Marathon.
Interestingly, around here, I've actually seen stores that encourage you to do this. They have signs up that basically say, "Why wait for a changing room? We accept returns for 30 days, use it!"
There's a huge difference between returning something that works but which you don't want, and returning defective merchandise. A store which refuses to accept a return on defective merchandise is breaking the law. A store which refuses to accept a return on something that has not yet been used is fully within its rights, and merely risks losing customers. If your CD qualifies as defective, then this kind of thing won't apply.
Alright mister jackass, let's start out with some conversions.
100km is equivalent to 62 miles, 328,000 feet, or, of course, 100,000 meters.
Spaceadventures.com claims that the world record for an air-breathing aicraft (which all MiGs are) is 123,524 feet, or 37,650m, which is just over one-third of the limit. No help for your position there.
The Forbes article only talks about going up to 80,000 feet. You're not even a quarter of the way with that one.
Incredible-adventures.com says, no surprise, basically the same thing.
Now, what was your point, again? Or were you just taking the opportunity to be an asshole? (Hint: don't be a pedantic "use the Google" idiot unless you're actually right.)
Slashdot Mirror
Spam is junk mail sent COD without the option to refuse payment. The fact that the incremental cost per spam is tiny doesn't matter; it's not zero, and these people send a tremendous volume of messages. The fact that the protocols are effectively designed to allow abuse doesn't matter either, because taking advantage of an inherently broken system in an illegal manner is still illegal. Last, most spammers (judging by the contents of my junk mail folder) are engaging in fraud to various degrees, such as ads for "herbal viagra" to the enormous, like advertising for cheap mortgages (I'm sure those are just phishing schemes), illegal prescription drugs, pirated software, etc.
Spam is not legitimate advertising. All you have to do to realize this is compare spam with other advertising. Normal advertising makes it very clear that it is, in fact, advertising, it clearly indicates the product being advertised, and it clearly indicates the organization doing the advertising. Spam, on the other hand, actively tries to disguise itself as personal e-mail, actively hides its source by doing things like forging e-mail headers, and often actively hides the product it is advertising by merely providing a link to a web site with no explanation of what it is. If spam really were legitimate advertising, spammers would not be doing any of this.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the non-SSL Yahoo login has always used a JavaScripted MD5 challenge-response mechanism that protects you from sniffing. It won't protect you from a DNS spoofer the way SSL will, but a passive sniffer can't get your password even over the "standard" login.
Unless it can burn one down from boost phase, all it'll do is make funny fallout patterns from any thing w/a NBC warhead somewhere in friendly(ish)territory.
Because there's no real difference between spreading a few pounds of radioactive material over the countryside, and destroying a city of ten million people with a nuclear blast.
And if someone's going to be tossing those, I think they'll be able to target the flying radar reflector aka a 747.
A 747 with a laser capable of knocking targets out of the sky at a range of hundreds of miles sounds like the easiest target in the world!
As the other posters have stated, no mirror is 100% reflective. At these power levels, with physically realistic materials, the leading edge of the laser pulse will vaporise a very thin layer off the top of the reflective surface. This vapor will be heated to plasma, and this plasma will be almost completely opaque. So this thin layer that gets blasted off the surface ends up absorbing the light as it comes in, before it can be reflected by the mirrored surface. This ends up heating the surface more, as the plasma expands and gets blown back towards it, vaporising even more material, and in short order you have a nice hole into your fuel tank and the missile is starting to explode. This all happens incredibly fast with these pulsed lasers, and that's why mirroring or spinning the missile won't help much.
Hmm, an airplane with an incredibly powerful laser in the belly, capable of hitting a tiny spot over a range of a couple of hundred miles.... Yes, attacking that should be a piece of cake! You go first, I'll follow.
And if I've read things correctly, a dirty suitcase nuke won't do much more than contaminate the building it goes off in, and people living nearby won't be getting any more additional radiation than somebody who lives in Denver.
Dirty bombs are not physical weapons, they are psychological weapons. Their actual radiological effects are effectively nil. They only work because of people's irrational fears.
The series is already one of the more genre-busting SF stories out there. It started out as a radio play, was done as a series of books, a TV miniseries, a text adventure game, and finally another radio play. Making a movie hardly seems worse than any of the other transitions.
In case you're stuck with the idea that Doug Adams wrote the books and everything else was just trying to make a buck with cheap work, it started as a radio play, and Adams has had a hand in every adaptation to date, including this new movie. (Yes, he's dead, but that doesn't seem to stop him.)
Does gamestop have to do anything... nope.
That is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There is a legal, implicit warranty with any commercial transaction. If you read through the GPL, you'll find a section that talks about "the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose", that's what it's talking about. The GPL can get away with disclaiming this implied warranty because no money changes hands, but Gamestop is selling a product so they must honor it.
The point I'm trying to make is that if Gamestop sells you a defective X-box, then they are legally obligated to fix it, exchange it, or refund you if you ask them to. It's not just bad for business if they don't, it's illegal. It comes down to whether "banned from Live" qualifies an X-box as defective. I would argue that it does, but it's not completely clear either way.
For a guy who seems to be incapable of beginning a sentence with a capital letter, you sure are picky about other people's language idiosyncrasies.
But they are willing and able to do exactly that.. and it only takes one suitably equipped suicide terrorist to do the job.
Killing everybody onboard is not the realm of hijacking, so it's not part of the subject being discussed. There are many easier ways to kill everybody on board an airliner than getting a bunch of guys inside it with guns.
I don't think they are too concerned that passengers will get frisky and try to stop them.. they will kill any that bother them and then kill the rest after anyway.
That worked three times. The fourth time it mostly failed. (The airliner crashed, but the airliner's target wasn't hit.) The only reason it was "mostly" is because the passengers didn't find out that the calculus of hijacking has changed until the situation was controlled by the hijackers. Now people will make their move as soon as a hijacking attempt becomes apparent.
If they are able to get on the plane, then its all over no matter what.. best that can be hoped for is that less people are killed on the ground as well.
Do you really think that five guys armed with box cutters are going to be able to kill a plane full of people with nothing to lose? Or two guys armed with guns? It's not going to happen. Notice how many successful hijackings there have been in the last three years. Notice how every time somebody tries something weird, he's tackled by his compatriots and tied up. The hijackers will always be significantly outnumbered, and no weapon you can get through security with any degree of reliability will let you win against those odds, especially against people who are backed into a corner.
Ask the guys stuck in Camp Delta about how difficult it can be to challenge the government when they've decided you've been bad.
No, I think a government controlled list that decides who can and cannot take an airplane is a Very Bad Idea.
The era of airliner hijackings is over. Before, everybody knew that if you just kept your head down and acted docile, you would live through a hijacking. You might be stuck on the plane for a while until things worked out, but your chances of survival were very good. Thus everybody stayed quiet and let the hijackers do what they want.
Now, everybody knows that if you don't do anything, you will die. People faced with certain death become very motivated. No hijacking will be able to take place now unless the hijackers have significant numbers compared to the passengers, are very well-armed, and are willing to kill most people on board. That simply isn't going to happen. My best way to stay safe on an airliner is to be on a plane filled with bad motherfuckers who won't be afraid to rush the terrorists when they try to take over. The TSA isn't trying to protect us from hijackings, they're simply trying to expand.
I've never met a European who isn't incredibly shocked at how unbelievably cold it gets during winter in Wisconsin. This despite the fact that most of Europe is further north than Wisconsin. Now, I've never met any Scandinavians, but everybody I've met from Germany and Poland have never even imagined wind chills of -80F. Proximity to the ocean makes a huge difference.
The last part of the game felt like I was playing through a scene from some zombie flick. Zombies everywhere, and I was just mowing through them with my Boomstick. God I love that gun.
Seems like the Mac fluffy bunny syndrome has attacked.
Yeah, no way could I have made my choice based on merit, huh?
Stanaphone does not charge a monthly fee, nor does gafachi, simpletelecom, voipjet, and others.
I never said they did. I said that none of the ones that didn't charge a monthly fee actually had a rates page available anywhere, that I could find.
A 'dumb toy' means something that looks nice and is hyped professionally, which duplicates things that already exist that work as well, or better, and at lower cost, and with open protocols with numerous competing open and closed client, server and provider options.
Cut the crap and just state the thing you really care about: Skype is a proprietary protocol. It's obvious you don't care about anything else. You flat out stated above that having lots of competition is good for an open protocol ("numerous competing... options" being stated as a good thing) but not for a closed protocol ("duplicates things that already exist" being stated as a bad thing).
Guess what? Some people don't give a crap whether it's open or closed. We care about ease of use, price, and things like that. You have yet to demonstrate that your proposed solution wins on any of those.
Yes, I realize this conversation started out with me having the misconception that no open voice-to-phone solutions existed, but you seem to have decided to turn it into an attack against Skype. Given that, I don't have to show that Skype is better, I just have to show that it's just as good.
The 'Walled Garden' environment favoured by Mac heads is doomed.
The entire OS is based on open standards. I can run most open-source software written for a POSIX environment. The most common trait among Mac users is wanting things to Just Work. When an open-source program is the right tool for the job, such as when it comes to hacking lisp, instant messaging, network sniffing, or any number of other tasks, I use open source software. When it comes to making phone calls from my computer, I choose Skype, because it Just Works and I see no downside. "Looks nice" is a bonus, not a downside.
Restating your point without supporting it is not really getting us anywhere.
Stanaphone (not my #1 favorite, but it is easy) costs at http://www.stanaphone.com/whatsstana/
As I noted in a followup, this page doesn't work in Safari. Breaking their rates page in the most popular Mac browser doesn't seem like a good sign. Of course, Skype's order page is broken under Safari's default cookie policy. Skype is certainly not perfect, but it seems pretty nice.
I discovered that Stanaphone's rates page simply doesn't like Safari. It works fine in FireFox.
They charge 2 cents a minute to the US and France, or 20 cents a minute to a cell phone in France. They charge 3 cents a minute to China.
At the today's exchange rate, Skype charges 2.2 cents a minute to the US and France, 21 cents a minute to a cell phone in France, and 2.8 cents a minute to China.
Skype looks pretty competitive to me based on its rates. Are there VoIP providers out there that are significantly cheaper than this?
No monthly fee. Runs on Mac. Does not require propellor beanie. As an extra bonus, you can receive calls, too.
t =voip
There are MANY clients out there, I prefer IAXcomm (good on Mac/Linux/Wincrap). An 'easier' one is probably SJPhone (also Mac/Wincrap).
http://www.sjlabs.com/sjp.html
SJPhone and IAXcomm both look like they were coughed up by somebody's cat, but that doesn't mean they won't work, of course.
IAXcomm just died when I quit it. Not encouraging.
Easiest service is probably Stanaphone, you'll get a New York inbound number, and cheap outbound.
They don't seem to want to tell me how much they charge. Their rates page has no rates. They also don't seem to do international calls, which isn't very useful. Do you know how much they charge?
For outbound-only, you have many choices.
This list is not complete, but it's plenty.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/isplist?
I couldn't find anybody in that list that actually listed rates and didn't charge a monthly fee. I gave up after looking at about ten, though, so it's entirely possible there's a provider out there with a web site that doesn't suck that doesn't charge a monthly fee.
Well, there's one: Skype. Maybe there are more.
Skype is a dumb toy that is very well-marketed.
What makes Skype "a dumb toy"? It works, doesn't it? It's reasonably cheap. It's cross-platform. They don't do incoming calls yet, but that doesn't seem to bother you too much. Is this another one of those things where you hate it because it's successful, or is there a better reason?
Do they charge monthly fees? If so, then they will be more expensive than SkypeOut for me no matter how cheap their per-minute rate is, because of my extremely small calling volume.
Can I install this software on my computer? I have a Mac.
Those were the only two issues I stated, but there was a third that I failed to state: can I get this all up and running in less than an hour? I don't want to have to do a lot of work for something that can be point-and-click simple.
Congratulations! You've discovered the Slashdot theme! For anybody watching from the sidelines, the Slashdot theme is, "It's not useful to me, therefore it's not useful to anybody." Well done!
Yawn. Wake me up when Free Software lets me make calls to a regular telephone number from my computer at the same rates SkypeOut does.
That is a false dichotomy. There are other possibilities, such as applying standards of process perfection that are easily reachable in the real world, such as requiring a verifiable paper trail. The rest of the civilized democratic world manages to do this without a great deal of unnecessary pain and expense, why not us?
Now I'm not saying Halo's story was on par for the Godfather or anything like that, but for an FPS, there really was no cohesive equal.
You, sir, have obviously never played Marathon. Now there was a story that got you involved, that sucked you in, chewed you up, and spit you out. Halo's story is but the barest shadow of Marathon's. (Almost literally, since they were both done by the same people.) Marathon is full of hope, struggle, mystery, betrayal, revenge, and ambiguity, and all of this was achieved without a single cutscene or line of recorded dialog more complex than, "Thank god it's you!"
Ahh, Bungie, how the mighty have fallen. Not to say that Halo isn't good, I enjoy it quite a bit, but I wonder if Bungie will ever manage to match their achievement in Marathon.
Interestingly, around here, I've actually seen stores that encourage you to do this. They have signs up that basically say, "Why wait for a changing room? We accept returns for 30 days, use it!"
There's a huge difference between returning something that works but which you don't want, and returning defective merchandise. A store which refuses to accept a return on defective merchandise is breaking the law. A store which refuses to accept a return on something that has not yet been used is fully within its rights, and merely risks losing customers. If your CD qualifies as defective, then this kind of thing won't apply.
Alright mister jackass, let's start out with some conversions.
100km is equivalent to 62 miles, 328,000 feet, or, of course, 100,000 meters.
Spaceadventures.com claims that the world record for an air-breathing aicraft (which all MiGs are) is 123,524 feet, or 37,650m, which is just over one-third of the limit. No help for your position there.
The Forbes article only talks about going up to 80,000 feet. You're not even a quarter of the way with that one.
Incredible-adventures.com says, no surprise, basically the same thing.
Now, what was your point, again? Or were you just taking the opportunity to be an asshole? (Hint: don't be a pedantic "use the Google" idiot unless you're actually right.)