Well if you consider accepting 3rd party starter checks for payment, then maybe:-;
Seriously, PayPal is NOT a bank and thus provides virtually no protection - there are many well documented instances of PayPal freezing funds, withdrawing funds from people's bank accounts, negative balances, issueing refunds and allowing the buyer to keep the product too, etc.
PayPal is a very useful service, but anyone who trusts it for large amounts of money (of course that's going to be relative to one's financial worth, etc) is asking for trouble. They are not a bank and they basically play fast and loose with their policies - and good luck in contacting anyone there.
PayPalSucks.com and PayPalWarning.com shed more light on the darker side of PayPal.
Don't get me wrong, PayPal works great and is very convenient for most folks, including myself...but still one should be aware of the risks they take on when using them to transfer money.
The clearing process involves more than just making the funds available to the depositor...the actual fund transfer and reconcilation process between financial institutions often takes longer than one or two business days; in essance the bank is making the deposits available on a provisional basis in many instances (as required by law) until the complete clearing process has run its course - banks should educate folks on this instead of burying it deep in fineprint.
In regards to depositing a cashier check...if it's "legit", then very likely the financial institution its drawn on will have funds to cover it...the primary concern one should have when accepting cashier checks isn't fund availability, but rather is it real...some forgeries are very difficult to catch before-hand.
On a related topic, even if your bank calls the other financial institution, that doesn't protect you because there are instances where a bank will be told the cashier check is valid or whatnot, but then later turns out it's not - yes, this really happens:-(
If you are dealing with another financial institution or long-time customer who hands you a cashier check, then most likely it's going to be real and the funds are truly yours.
Ultimately, it all comes down to trust of the parties involved in a financial transaction, not the physical check or whatnot.
The seller made a common mistake assuming that the funds were truly his because his bank said the funds were available in his bank account.
The cashier check in his case was a forgery and thus the deposited funds were not truly his and so his bank reversed the deposit so to speak and took the funds back.
Without going into detail of clearing procedures, one should wait at least 10 business days when accepting any check regardless of type *unless* they are positive it's "good" *and* is drawn on an account that has sufficient funds to cover.
The check *appeared* to clear. Many people figure that once the deposited funds are made available in their account - typically one or two business days, that the money is theirs...
The problem is that a deposited check, etc can be canceled or not honored for upwards of 10 business days. So for one to be virtually sure that a check, etc is "good", they need to wait at least 10 business days (2+ weeks)...most folks don't wait that long, but they should or they run the risk of being scammed.
Also, even if the check itself is real (lets not even get into forged cashier checks, etc - even a well seasoned banker would have difficulty detecting some forgeries), the account it's associated with may not be and/or lacking any funds.
Bottom line is that waiting for clearing is critical...below is my understanding/experience with these things...not the gospel...
Common payment methods and clearing/dispute time frames:
Wire: Same day and very safe...they're not without risk though, but problems are rare. Some places that accept wires for payment impose a two day waiting period.
Check: 10 business days for personal/business checks. Cashier checks, etc have much shorter clearing times - BUT that assumes they're real...if unsure/concerned, then one should wait 10 business days as with personal checks.
Money Order: At least 10 business days if forged. It's best to wait, then be sorry if unsure.
Direct deposit (ACH): 2 business days. Can be reversed/disputed for upwards of 60 days.
Credit Card: Varies on circumstances and issurer, but can be reversed for upwards of six months later.
The law and procedures are very complicated and full of exceptions, etc...the bank, acting an agent, must make deposited funds available within a short period time as dictated by law/banking procedures...but the point is one should NOT assume just because their bank says funds are available that the funds are truly theirs...because they may not be:-(
Ron Bennett
Re:Per Transaction Fees Suck...
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 2
Under major credit card company rules, merchants may not add transaction fees. Your boss is breaking their rules and could be fined by them.
Rules may have changed, but the last I checked, a merchant may, however, offer a discount from the stated price for those paying with cash.
With more ISP restrictions, filters, etc on various ports, we seem to be moving towards a one port internet where most everything is sent over HTTP via port 80 (also https 443).
HTTP works great for webpages, but using it for everything in the longrun is bad for everyone for numerous reasons.
What happens when VoIP is widely done via port 80 - what are they going do then?...block port 80...I don't think so!
Anyways, one can either expect that by Monday, PayPal will have made them "whole" or their PayPal account will be suspended and no longer work.
PayPal is a great idea, but it's a shame their customer service is so poor. Hopefully the eBay folks improve things with PayPal...otherwise PayPal could be end up being eBays's undoing:-(
Yes...but the point is that one has recourse in regards to unauthorized transactions from a checking account via ACH - this is by an act of law.
Contrast that with money in a PayPal account...no legal protection. None!
The other poster's emphasis was to withdraw the money out of PayPal on a frequent basis.
With that said, there's a wrinkle the other poster may have not considered...ACH withdrawals can be reversed for a period of time. So even if one withdraws the money to their checking account, PayPal can get it back with little hassle by reversing the ACH transaction - one has little recourse (withdrawing all money in the bank account won't work - the bank will just issue a bill!) in stopping such a reversal; not saying one can't, but is significantly difficult.
Bottom line is that PayPal is risky for both buyers and sellers alike - both sides assume relatively large risks when compared to other types of transactions like credit cards, on-line checks (ACH), etc that come with legal protections.
Perl is here to stay. Many websites, etc are locked into Perl well into the foreseeable future. It's much like COBOL - many people said it would be long since replaced by other languages...but guess what...COBOL is still around and ain't going away anytime soon...same is true with Perl...I bet that in 2037 I'll be rewriting perl programs in preparation for Jan-18-2038 when time since epoch exceeds 31 bits.
And to think that it was once up to nearly $300 per share. Who could've imagined it being below $1...wait, no earnings == no value == crappy stock price == delisting == bankrupt == gone!
Sure hope Slashdot doesn't have to stoop to the level of TPJ...though I'd buy a subscription to keep slashdot.org going if it came to that. Gotta have my slashdot fix:-)
In regards to TPJ...they should emphasize community as the significant benefit of membership, since information ain't gonna do it when there's lots of free perl information all around.
Why not convert PDF to HTML before-hand or on the fly - PDFs are a kludge and a bad one at that for most web applications.
I agree that PDF has its uses, such as for sites that post official forms (like the IRS) for people to print out and mail/fax back, etc.
But why do so many sites post mostly text documents in PDF...which require a propreitary reader and is difficult for the visitor to manipulate - such as searching, cut and paste, or translating into another language, etc.
Perhaps companies could avoid the ADA website issue by simply not having a website...but then again, some companies might be sued for not having a website - for example on the grounds that their physical store, etc is too far away or whatever.
"where do you draw the line between high traffic commercial websites, and (for instance), mine?"
There basically is no threshold for size if the court simply rules the ADA applies as it does in the physical realm. Virtually all commercial businesses (including non-profits) with a physical presence must follow the ADA.
If the court says the ADA applies to websites...*unless* the court stipulates traffic parameters, revenues, etc...every commercial website would then have to be ADA accessible, and worse could be just as easily sued for ADA violations as businesses with physical facilities already are now!
In short if the court rules that ADA applies to websites, unless the court is very specific to how it applies, all commercial websites regardless of size would be subject to the ruling...ouch!!! Talk about a legal nightmare!!
Finally I have a good excuse for using good 'ol HTML on sites, especially message boards like Marihemp Network Message Boards I run, other than it speeds things up - which in the world of cable and dsl doesn't fly anymore.
Personally, I think it's high time for companies that have public websites to strive for universal accessibility regardless of browser, etc - I really HATE seeing blurbs such as "MSIE 5+ required", etc on websites - defeats the whole idea of HTML and universal access.
While it's perhaps unrealistic for sites to work with various ancient browsers, a person with a basic browser that supports tables and other basic HTML (say HTML 3.2) should be able to access any publicly *commercial* website without hassles and plugins like flash and pdf - both of which I personally hate...webmasters who use pdf are too damn lazy to type while those who _require_ flash totally misunderstand the concept of HTML and universal accessibility.
Only shows how dumb some in the U.S. government/VeriSign are. On an aside, read up on the SAIC (they own a stake in VeriSign last I checked). Interesting. Anyways, many U.S. government sites rely on.COM,.NET,.ORG, and other TLDs as well for their operation so not sure how restricting only.GOV zone access does much really...
And anyways restricting zone file access doesn't work - domain speculators and others have for years basically compiled their own for other TLDs such as.COM - and since.GOV contains relatively few entries compared to the likes of.COM, the task of assembling much of the zone from the outside is quite trivial.
I'm sure idiots already are trading the.GOV zone files on irc for porn, etc or maybe even trying to sell it like they do with email addresses.
Off-topic ramble: It's sad to say, but it very much appears the terrorists are winning or some even argue already have won. Various people over the years used to warn that Americans could lose their freedoms quicker than they ever imagined - it's now happening; more detention camps are being constructed with vastly larger ones out on bid from my understanding - why would such large detention camps be needed? There aren't that many terrorists...unless the U.S. government now considers Americans terrorists...wait they already have...enemy combatants...and now the standard has been further lowered...query the.GOV zone without authorization and you too are a terrorist...better delete dig, whois, ping, right now!!:-;
Not sure where you've been lately since the U.S. government has mandated DRM for all practical matters via the DMCA and related laws.
Re:Didn't Yugoslavia disrupt a NATO e-mail server?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So NATO got less spam that day...not exactly a catastrophe. I doubt anyone at NATO really noticed anyways - and one would hope that NATO and other military related entities would communicate sensitive information through more secure and reliable channels as opposed to email.
When most think of an infrastructure related terrorist attack, they're thinking more along the lines of power being knocked out, phones not working, no water, etc. Email, despite all the hype, is something most people can live without or at least work around. Email at many companies goes down so often that many employees also use IM programs or other methods during such outages...sometimes even resorting to using the telephone. Oh what is this world coming too...
While I was not surprised by the 40,000 number, it's pathetic nevertheless considering the amount of promotion, name recognition, etc that Salon has.
Wall Street Journal on-line has hundreds of thousands of paying subscribers so surely one would have expected Salon to at least be well into the six figures of subscribers too.
Heck, many lousy porn sites have more than 40,000 subscribers and some charge upwards of $50 month!
Bottom line is there's money out there, but Salon's content/presentation just isn't compelling enough for most people, including myself, to pay for it.
Salon would do better revamp their on-line advertising presentation and instead go with more "in-line" ads (text/small images that complement the content - like Google uses) that are targetted as opposed to the mostly generic ads they run now. Such a change would lead to better ad response, leading to more ad revenue, and more time spent on the site by visitors - the more time a visitor spends on the site, the more likely it is they will subscribe.
Rambling on a bit here, but many "mainstream" sites have taken the wrong approach with their advertising presentation. Many of them think that because adult sites have success (though debatable) with pop-ups, ad loops, flash, etc that they will too. Adult content is very impulse driven and something that lends itself to "hardsell"...and the other aspect that many "mainstream" sites don't consider is that most places that run adult ads don't really want the visitor to come back...they either want the person to buy or get the hell out. Salon and other "mainstream" sites on the other-hand depend on repeat visitors and good public relations. Bombarding their visitors with tons of generic and annoying ads isn't exactly a formula for success and is costing Salon more than it's gaining them. Too bad they just don't get it:-(
If Comcast and other cable modem providers aren't careful about their pricing, they may invite much competition they didn't count on.
As of now, Comcast in my area (southeastern PA) is offering ISP service that virtually no one else is able to compete with...small ISPs can't match their speed/price and DSL isn't available in many areas.
However, if Comcast raises prices excessively, telcos may again see a real incentive to upgrade their switches and lines to allow for greater DSL penetration.
And don't count small ISPs either...as of now, most people needing faster ISP access just call their cable company without even thinking twice about it...but with high prices and limits, more people will shop around first before signing up.
Some will ask how can the mom and pop ISP compete...sure bandwidth is cheap and plenty is available, but how can they bridge the "last mile"...well, that's been solved...many small ISPs offer high speed service via packet radio from their facility to the customer. Works amazingly well and there's no noticable latency unlike satillite service.
I never thought I'd ever use a small mom and pop ISP again, but if Comcast isn't careful, I will...here in the Reading, PA area, there are some local ISPs that offer high speed access via radio and other alternative methods...who says cable has a monopoly...they control the cable path, but who says that's the only way...one has many options on how data gets to and from their computer and more people will explore these if their cable isp bills get insane.
To be fair here, I'm generally happy with Comcast's service and wouldn't mind paying a little more for faster data transfer with a reasonable transfer limit...but if Comcast thinks 5GB/month is enough, they'd better rethink that...even the so-called average user can easily exceed that...something like 30 GB/month would be more reasonable.
Re:I didn't even know this was possible...
on
RealNames Closing Shop
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I get about 200 hits per month through via a keyword - it's a trademarked madeup word. Many people I suspect simply forget the.com part and then after seeing they're still being routed properly to our site due to RealNames, they use it more and tell others. So in this regard, keywords do have some value in regards to convenience.
But as far as driving traffic, etc...keywords are generally a poor way to do it...keywords don't work the same everywhere...for example AOL keywords and RealNames don't correspond with each other...if RealNames had any sense, they should have gotten AOL aboard - perhaps they tried...but in any event, keywords lacked consistency and thus most companies, etc simply stayed with internet domain names - they're familiar to people, consistent for the most part, and much less expensive since RealNames also charged surcharges for high volume sites.
So all in all, I'm glad to see RealNames fail...and it serves VeriSign right too - they're about the worst company on the face of the planet...heck, look at what they did to two decent services GreatDomains and Registrars.com after they acquired them...but I digress...
What is to prevent someone from making a wax/plastic copy and then applying this overtop of their actual fingerprints??
This method solves the texture problem (if done correctly), the color is easy to duplicate, and the pulse...well the imposter also has a pulse so getting around that is piece of cake!!
Iris scans are also vulnerable by using a similar approach...one takes the iris image of the victim and imprints it onto a contact lenses and then wears them...how would an iris scanner be able to tell the person is a imposter...it probably wouldn't...so much for biometrics.
And that's the problem...many people assume that biometrics are fullproof, but in reality they are far from it...
Now one may say..."nothing is 100%, but biometrics is very secure"...that may be, but in those instances where a system is compremised, there is then NO WAY TO REVOKE AND REISSUE A NEW KEY since biometrics by their very nature are difficult to change unless one wants to undergo very expensive surgery.
Bottom line is that biometrics, like any security method is not fullproof and needs to be used wisely; or in some applications should not be used at all.
Such discussion is a red herring to get more government funding as well as to push for even more laws - like we don't have enough already.
Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry; or perhaps more sinister, such as a way to get lots of extra funding and laws passed fast with little resistance - most everyone I've spoken with who has truly read the Patriot Act is appalled at the total disregard of the U.S. Constitution and basic human rights.
Bottom line is don't believe all you read - but then most here already know that...for the biggest threats to our security are from within...another reason the U.S. government should NOT develop mini-nukes (a misnomer to say the least!) for it's likely they will be used against us at some point...technology is a double-edged sword and thus we should not rely solely on it to solve our problems.
Ok, I really rambled on here, but anyways one must be careful what they believe...for the U.S. propaganda machine is running full-tilt these days to stuff our minds full of garbage and lies...it's happened before and is happening now!
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you consider accepting 3rd party starter checks for payment, then maybe
Seriously, PayPal is NOT a bank and thus provides virtually no protection - there are many well documented instances of PayPal freezing funds, withdrawing funds from people's bank accounts, negative balances, issueing refunds and allowing the buyer to keep the product too, etc.
PayPal is a very useful service, but anyone who trusts it for large amounts of money (of course that's going to be relative to one's financial worth, etc) is asking for trouble. They are not a bank and they basically play fast and loose with their policies - and good luck in contacting anyone there.
PayPalSucks.com and PayPalWarning.com shed more light on the darker side of PayPal.
http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.paypalw
Don't get me wrong, PayPal works great and is very convenient for most folks, including myself...but still one should be aware of the risks they take on when using them to transfer money.
Ron
The clearing process involves more than just making the funds available to the depositor...the actual fund transfer and reconcilation process between financial institutions often takes longer than one or two business days; in essance the bank is making the deposits available on a provisional basis in many instances (as required by law) until the complete clearing process has run its course - banks should educate folks on this instead of burying it deep in fineprint.
:-(
In regards to depositing a cashier check...if it's "legit", then very likely the financial institution its drawn on will have funds to cover it...the primary concern one should have when accepting cashier checks isn't fund availability, but rather is it real...some forgeries are very difficult to catch before-hand.
On a related topic, even if your bank calls the other financial institution, that doesn't protect you because there are instances where a bank will be told the cashier check is valid or whatnot, but then later turns out it's not - yes, this really happens
If you are dealing with another financial institution or long-time customer who hands you a cashier check, then most likely it's going to be real and the funds are truly yours.
Ultimately, it all comes down to trust of the parties involved in a financial transaction, not the physical check or whatnot.
Ron
The seller made a common mistake assuming that the funds were truly his because his bank said the funds were available in his bank account.
The cashier check in his case was a forgery and thus the deposited funds were not truly his and so his bank reversed the deposit so to speak and took the funds back.
Without going into detail of clearing procedures, one should wait at least 10 business days when accepting any check regardless of type *unless* they are positive it's "good" *and* is drawn on an account that has sufficient funds to cover.
The check *appeared* to clear. Many people figure that once the deposited funds are made available in their account - typically one or two business days, that the money is theirs...
:-(
The problem is that a deposited check, etc can be canceled or not honored for upwards of 10 business days. So for one to be virtually sure that a check, etc is "good", they need to wait at least 10 business days (2+ weeks)...most folks don't wait that long, but they should or they run the risk of being scammed.
Also, even if the check itself is real (lets not even get into forged cashier checks, etc - even a well seasoned banker would have difficulty detecting some forgeries), the account it's associated with may not be and/or lacking any funds.
Bottom line is that waiting for clearing is critical...below is my understanding/experience with these things...not the gospel...
Common payment methods and clearing/dispute time frames:
Wire: Same day and very safe...they're not without risk though, but problems are rare. Some places that accept wires for payment impose a two day waiting period.
Check: 10 business days for personal/business checks. Cashier checks, etc have much shorter clearing times - BUT that assumes they're real...if unsure/concerned, then one should wait 10 business days as with personal checks.
Money Order: At least 10 business days if forged. It's best to wait, then be sorry if unsure.
Direct deposit (ACH): 2 business days. Can be reversed/disputed for upwards of 60 days.
Credit Card: Varies on circumstances and issurer, but can be reversed for upwards of six months later.
The law and procedures are very complicated and full of exceptions, etc...the bank, acting an agent, must make deposited funds available within a short period time as dictated by law/banking procedures...but the point is one should NOT assume just because their bank says funds are available that the funds are truly theirs...because they may not be
Ron Bennett
Under major credit card company rules, merchants may not add transaction fees. Your boss is breaking their rules and could be fined by them.
Rules may have changed, but the last I checked, a merchant may, however, offer a discount from the stated price for those paying with cash.
With more ISP restrictions, filters, etc on various ports, we seem to be moving towards a one port internet where most everything is sent over HTTP via port 80 (also https 443).
HTTP works great for webpages, but using it for everything in the longrun is bad for everyone for numerous reasons.
What happens when VoIP is widely done via port 80 - what are they going do then?...block port 80...I don't think so!
Ron Bennett
Bizarre isn't it :-;
:-(
Anyways, one can either expect that by Monday, PayPal will have made them "whole" or their PayPal account will be suspended and no longer work.
PayPal is a great idea, but it's a shame their customer service is so poor. Hopefully the eBay folks improve things with PayPal...otherwise PayPal could be end up being eBays's undoing
Yes...but the point is that one has recourse in regards to unauthorized transactions from a checking account via ACH - this is by an act of law.
Contrast that with money in a PayPal account...no legal protection. None!
The other poster's emphasis was to withdraw the money out of PayPal on a frequent basis.
With that said, there's a wrinkle the other poster may have not considered...ACH withdrawals can be reversed for a period of time. So even if one withdraws the money to their checking account, PayPal can get it back with little hassle by reversing the ACH transaction - one has little recourse (withdrawing all money in the bank account won't work - the bank will just issue a bill!) in stopping such a reversal; not saying one can't, but is significantly difficult.
Bottom line is that PayPal is risky for both buyers and sellers alike - both sides assume relatively large risks when compared to other types of transactions like credit cards, on-line checks (ACH), etc that come with legal protections.
Someone has...check out these sites:
paypalwarning.com
paypalsucks.com
Perl is here to stay. Many websites, etc are locked into Perl well into the foreseeable future. It's much like COBOL - many people said it would be long since replaced by other languages...but guess what...COBOL is still around and ain't going away anytime soon...same is true with Perl...I bet that in 2037 I'll be rewriting perl programs in preparation for Jan-18-2038 when time since epoch exceeds 31 bits.
And to think that it was once up to nearly $300 per share. Who could've imagined it being below $1...wait, no earnings == no value == crappy stock price == delisting == bankrupt == gone!
:-)
Sure hope Slashdot doesn't have to stoop to the level of TPJ...though I'd buy a subscription to keep slashdot.org going if it came to that. Gotta have my slashdot fix
In regards to TPJ...they should emphasize community as the significant benefit of membership, since information ain't gonna do it when there's lots of free perl information all around.
Neither is Slashdot...so your point is? :-)
Why not convert PDF to HTML before-hand or on the fly - PDFs are a kludge and a bad one at that for most web applications.
I agree that PDF has its uses, such as for sites that post official forms (like the IRS) for people to print out and mail/fax back, etc.
But why do so many sites post mostly text documents in PDF...which require a propreitary reader and is difficult for the visitor to manipulate - such as searching, cut and paste, or translating into another language, etc.
Interesting question...could cut either way...
Perhaps companies could avoid the ADA website issue by simply not having a website...but then again, some companies might be sued for not having a website - for example on the grounds that their physical store, etc is too far away or whatever.
How would porn sites comply with this??
Porn in braille...is there such a thing?
Ron
"where do you draw the line between high traffic commercial websites, and (for instance), mine?"
There basically is no threshold for size if the court simply rules the ADA applies as it does in the physical realm. Virtually all commercial businesses (including non-profits) with a physical presence must follow the ADA.
If the court says the ADA applies to websites...*unless* the court stipulates traffic parameters, revenues, etc...every commercial website would then have to be ADA accessible, and worse could be just as easily sued for ADA violations as businesses with physical facilities already are now!
In short if the court rules that ADA applies to websites, unless the court is very specific to how it applies, all commercial websites regardless of size would be subject to the ruling...ouch!!! Talk about a legal nightmare!!
Ron Bennett
Finally I have a good excuse for using good 'ol HTML on sites, especially message boards like Marihemp Network Message Boards I run, other than it speeds things up - which in the world of cable and dsl doesn't fly anymore.
:-)
Personally, I think it's high time for companies that have public websites to strive for universal accessibility regardless of browser, etc - I really HATE seeing blurbs such as "MSIE 5+ required", etc on websites - defeats the whole idea of HTML and universal access.
While it's perhaps unrealistic for sites to work with various ancient browsers, a person with a basic browser that supports tables and other basic HTML (say HTML 3.2) should be able to access any publicly *commercial* website without hassles and plugins like flash and pdf - both of which I personally hate...webmasters who use pdf are too damn lazy to type while those who _require_ flash totally misunderstand the concept of HTML and universal accessibility.
End of rant
Ron Bennett
Only shows how dumb some in the U.S. government/VeriSign are. On an aside, read up on the SAIC (they own a stake in VeriSign last I checked). Interesting. Anyways, many U.S. government sites rely on .COM, .NET, .ORG, and other TLDs as well for their operation so not sure how restricting only .GOV zone access does much really...
.COM - and since .GOV contains relatively few entries compared to the likes of .COM, the task of assembling much of the zone from the outside is quite trivial.
.GOV zone files on irc for porn, etc or maybe even trying to sell it like they do with email addresses.
.GOV zone without authorization and you too are a terrorist...better delete dig, whois, ping, right now!! :-;
And anyways restricting zone file access doesn't work - domain speculators and others have for years basically compiled their own for other TLDs such as
I'm sure idiots already are trading the
Off-topic ramble: It's sad to say, but it very much appears the terrorists are winning or some even argue already have won. Various people over the years used to warn that Americans could lose their freedoms quicker than they ever imagined - it's now happening; more detention camps are being constructed with vastly larger ones out on bid from my understanding - why would such large detention camps be needed? There aren't that many terrorists...unless the U.S. government now considers Americans terrorists...wait they already have...enemy combatants...and now the standard has been further lowered...query the
Ron
Not sure where you've been lately since the U.S. government has mandated DRM for all practical matters via the DMCA and related laws.
So NATO got less spam that day...not exactly a catastrophe. I doubt anyone at NATO really noticed anyways - and one would hope that NATO and other military related entities would communicate sensitive information through more secure and reliable channels as opposed to email.
When most think of an infrastructure related terrorist attack, they're thinking more along the lines of power being knocked out, phones not working, no water, etc. Email, despite all the hype, is something most people can live without or at least work around. Email at many companies goes down so often that many employees also use IM programs or other methods during such outages...sometimes even resorting to using the telephone. Oh what is this world coming too...
While I was not surprised by the 40,000 number, it's pathetic nevertheless considering the amount of promotion, name recognition, etc that Salon has.
:-(
Wall Street Journal on-line has hundreds of thousands of paying subscribers so surely one would have expected Salon to at least be well into the six figures of subscribers too.
Heck, many lousy porn sites have more than 40,000 subscribers and some charge upwards of $50 month!
Bottom line is there's money out there, but Salon's content/presentation just isn't compelling enough for most people, including myself, to pay for it.
Salon would do better revamp their on-line advertising presentation and instead go with more "in-line" ads (text/small images that complement the content - like Google uses) that are targetted as opposed to the mostly generic ads they run now. Such a change would lead to better ad response, leading to more ad revenue, and more time spent on the site by visitors - the more time a visitor spends on the site, the more likely it is they will subscribe.
Rambling on a bit here, but many "mainstream" sites have taken the wrong approach with their advertising presentation. Many of them think that because adult sites have success (though debatable) with pop-ups, ad loops, flash, etc that they will too. Adult content is very impulse driven and something that lends itself to "hardsell"...and the other aspect that many "mainstream" sites don't consider is that most places that run adult ads don't really want the visitor to come back...they either want the person to buy or get the hell out. Salon and other "mainstream" sites on the other-hand depend on repeat visitors and good public relations. Bombarding their visitors with tons of generic and annoying ads isn't exactly a formula for success and is costing Salon more than it's gaining them. Too bad they just don't get it
If Comcast and other cable modem providers aren't careful about their pricing, they may invite much competition they didn't count on.
As of now, Comcast in my area (southeastern PA) is offering ISP service that virtually no one else is able to compete with...small ISPs can't match their speed/price and DSL isn't available in many areas.
However, if Comcast raises prices excessively, telcos may again see a real incentive to upgrade their switches and lines to allow for greater DSL penetration.
And don't count small ISPs either...as of now, most people needing faster ISP access just call their cable company without even thinking twice about it...but with high prices and limits, more people will shop around first before signing up.
Some will ask how can the mom and pop ISP compete...sure bandwidth is cheap and plenty is available, but how can they bridge the "last mile"...well, that's been solved...many small ISPs offer high speed service via packet radio from their facility to the customer. Works amazingly well and there's no noticable latency unlike satillite service.
I never thought I'd ever use a small mom and pop ISP again, but if Comcast isn't careful, I will...here in the Reading, PA area, there are some local ISPs that offer high speed access via radio and other alternative methods...who says cable has a monopoly...they control the cable path, but who says that's the only way...one has many options on how data gets to and from their computer and more people will explore these if their cable isp bills get insane.
To be fair here, I'm generally happy with Comcast's service and wouldn't mind paying a little more for faster data transfer with a reasonable transfer limit...but if Comcast thinks 5GB/month is enough, they'd better rethink that...even the so-called average user can easily exceed that...something like 30 GB/month would be more reasonable.
I get about 200 hits per month through via a keyword - it's a trademarked madeup word. Many people I suspect simply forget the .com part and then after seeing they're still being routed properly to our site due to RealNames, they use it more and tell others. So in this regard, keywords do have some value in regards to convenience.
But as far as driving traffic, etc...keywords are generally a poor way to do it...keywords don't work the same everywhere...for example AOL keywords and RealNames don't correspond with each other...if RealNames had any sense, they should have gotten AOL aboard - perhaps they tried...but in any event, keywords lacked consistency and thus most companies, etc simply stayed with internet domain names - they're familiar to people, consistent for the most part, and much less expensive since RealNames also charged surcharges for high volume sites.
So all in all, I'm glad to see RealNames fail...and it serves VeriSign right too - they're about the worst company on the face of the planet...heck, look at what they did to two decent services GreatDomains and Registrars.com after they acquired them...but I digress...
What is to prevent someone from making a wax/plastic copy and then applying this overtop of their actual fingerprints??
This method solves the texture problem (if done correctly), the color is easy to duplicate, and the pulse...well the imposter also has a pulse so getting around that is piece of cake!!
Iris scans are also vulnerable by using a similar approach...one takes the iris image of the victim and imprints it onto a contact lenses and then wears them...how would an iris scanner be able to tell the person is a imposter...it probably wouldn't...so much for biometrics.
And that's the problem...many people assume that biometrics are fullproof, but in reality they are far from it...
Now one may say..."nothing is 100%, but biometrics is very secure"...that may be, but in those instances where a system is compremised, there is then NO WAY TO REVOKE AND REISSUE A NEW KEY since biometrics by their very nature are difficult to change unless one wants to undergo very expensive surgery.
Bottom line is that biometrics, like any security method is not fullproof and needs to be used wisely; or in some applications should not be used at all.
Such discussion is a red herring to get more government funding as well as to push for even more laws - like we don't have enough already.
Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry; or perhaps more sinister, such as a way to get lots of extra funding and laws passed fast with little resistance - most everyone I've spoken with who has truly read the Patriot Act is appalled at the total disregard of the U.S. Constitution and basic human rights.
Bottom line is don't believe all you read - but then most here already know that...for the biggest threats to our security are from within...another reason the U.S. government should NOT develop mini-nukes (a misnomer to say the least!) for it's likely they will be used against us at some point...technology is a double-edged sword and thus we should not rely solely on it to solve our problems.
Ok, I really rambled on here, but anyways one must be careful what they believe...for the U.S. propaganda machine is running full-tilt these days to stuff our minds full of garbage and lies...it's happened before and is happening now!