This is a logical fallacy known as the 'no true Scotsman'. When an assertion is countered with a real-world example, the person making the false assertion recasts the parameters; the phrase refers to a putative Scotsman exclaiming that "no TRUE Scotsman would do such a thing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The standard method of milk delivery in the UK used to be (and in some areas still is) the 'milk float', a small electric vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float
You know what? It works. Fudge works. Complexity works. As any software architect knows, systems accrete, evolve, become complex and self-regulating and balanced.
It scares me much more that a zealot with a gleam in her eye would want to throw the whole lot out for being inelegant and make a clean sweep. That's how fascists get elected.
The primary problem with sales tax (or VAT here in the EU) is that it is unfair.
Sales tax is a regressive tax; in other words, one that hurts those at the bottom of the pile because the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on 'stuff'. As a result, you get an inverse Robin Hood tax (a Dennis Moore tax?) that steals from the poor to give to the rich.
Income tax is a much fairer way to redistribute wealth.
Nice ad hominem (or is that an ad nominem?).
Isn't it always the people most insecure about their status that constantly refer to it? You're only 34,053 from the edge, little man.
Wow, even for/. this is a patronising argument. Essentially you state that the Ebert's judgement has been so skewed by suffering that he is not capable of making a rational statement; and then magnanimously 'give him a pass' because he's written brilliantly in the past. Nauseating.
Quite right. But what is interesting about UK libel laws is that whilst truthfulness is indeed a valid defence, the prosecution does not have to show untruthfulness to bring an action. So in order to sue for libel, you don't have to prove that the statement was untrue - indeed truth doesn't come into it.
Instead, we have a wonderfully stuffy bit of English law that says that a libellous statement is one that 'lowers the reputation of the victim in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally.'
Illegal does mean criminal. The word you're looking for is 'unlawful' - as I pointed out on Monday to the Tory MEP who is working to weaken amendment 138 and thereby allow three-strikes rules across Europe.
What an odd statement by Visa. The principle of Freedom of Contract means that people are generally free to trade with whoever they want. If the merchant chooses to decline to do business with me based on my refusal to provide ID, that's their choice. It might be irritating and lose customers, but they could insist I stood on my head and whistled Yankee Doodle if they wanted to.
An identical situation - where the original producer gets a cut of every subsequent sale - has been happening across Europe in one particular very high value market for nearly a decade now. It's called droit de suite, and it's granted on art sold at auctions to make sure that impecunious artists get a cut of the multimillion resale values of their art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_right
It's a pretty contentious issue, especially for us mercantile Brits.
Ed Byrne: "The only ironic thing about that song is that it's called 'Ironic' and it's written by a woman who doesn't know what irony is."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg
So... you just tell the ATM that its 100s are 5s - and then repeatedly ask for 5s.
$500 limit coughs up ~$100.000...
In other words - about $90.000 per card.
No.
$100 = 20 x $5.
$100,000 = $500 x 200.
You (and the article's author) have invented a bunch of technical detail that wasn't necessary here.
What could have happened is that each 'cashier' had a clone of each of the ~100 cards, and the attacks were co-ordinated close enough in time that the local limit monitoring was not updated quickly enough to reflect the other withdrawals.
$9million divided by (~100 cards x ~130 locations) = $692 average withdrawal. This is consistent with some countries having a daily withdrawal limit of $500, others up to $1000.
The only compromised system here appears to be the Worldpay one, so this hypothesis is much more credible than the attacker(s) being able to lift the withdrawal limit across multiple bank systems in multiple countries.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a logical fallacy known as the 'no true Scotsman'. When an assertion is countered with a real-world example, the person making the false assertion recasts the parameters; the phrase refers to a putative Scotsman exclaiming that "no TRUE Scotsman would do such a thing". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The standard method of milk delivery in the UK used to be (and in some areas still is) the 'milk float', a small electric vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float
You know what? It works. Fudge works. Complexity works. As any software architect knows, systems accrete, evolve, become complex and self-regulating and balanced. It scares me much more that a zealot with a gleam in her eye would want to throw the whole lot out for being inelegant and make a clean sweep. That's how fascists get elected.
"Ad nominem" = (in poor Latin) an attack against the number, in this case the UID.
The primary problem with sales tax (or VAT here in the EU) is that it is unfair. Sales tax is a regressive tax; in other words, one that hurts those at the bottom of the pile because the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on 'stuff'. As a result, you get an inverse Robin Hood tax (a Dennis Moore tax?) that steals from the poor to give to the rich. Income tax is a much fairer way to redistribute wealth.
Nice ad hominem (or is that an ad nominem?). Isn't it always the people most insecure about their status that constantly refer to it? You're only 34,053 from the edge, little man.
Wow, even for /. this is a patronising argument. Essentially you state that the Ebert's judgement has been so skewed by suffering that he is not capable of making a rational statement; and then magnanimously 'give him a pass' because he's written brilliantly in the past. Nauseating.
rm store works even though it's a folder. Is this a bug?
Quite right. But what is interesting about UK libel laws is that whilst truthfulness is indeed a valid defence, the prosecution does not have to show untruthfulness to bring an action. So in order to sue for libel, you don't have to prove that the statement was untrue - indeed truth doesn't come into it. Instead, we have a wonderfully stuffy bit of English law that says that a libellous statement is one that 'lowers the reputation of the victim in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally.'
Well I'll be darned, that IS useful. Who said that reading /. at 3am wasn't worthwhile?
Illegal does mean criminal. The word you're looking for is 'unlawful' - as I pointed out on Monday to the Tory MEP who is working to weaken amendment 138 and thereby allow three-strikes rules across Europe.
"2 mile DRIVE to work" Don't you mean half hour walk or ten minute cycle?
You lost me at 'Viola'
Slightly less nerdy to use Iain M. Banks' wonderful starship names like Frank Exchange of Views, Xenophobe or It'll Be Over By Christmas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_(The_Culture)
What an odd statement by Visa. The principle of Freedom of Contract means that people are generally free to trade with whoever they want. If the merchant chooses to decline to do business with me based on my refusal to provide ID, that's their choice. It might be irritating and lose customers, but they could insist I stood on my head and whistled Yankee Doodle if they wanted to.
An identical situation - where the original producer gets a cut of every subsequent sale - has been happening across Europe in one particular very high value market for nearly a decade now. It's called droit de suite, and it's granted on art sold at auctions to make sure that impecunious artists get a cut of the multimillion resale values of their art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_right It's a pretty contentious issue, especially for us mercantile Brits.
MD5 is a hash function.
Ed Byrne: "The only ironic thing about that song is that it's called 'Ironic' and it's written by a woman who doesn't know what irony is." www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg
So... you just tell the ATM that its 100s are 5s - and then repeatedly ask for 5s. $500 limit coughs up ~$100.000...
In other words - about $90.000 per card.
No.
$100 = 20 x $5.
$100,000 = $500 x 200.
You (and the article's author) have invented a bunch of technical detail that wasn't necessary here.
What could have happened is that each 'cashier' had a clone of each of the ~100 cards, and the attacks were co-ordinated close enough in time that the local limit monitoring was not updated quickly enough to reflect the other withdrawals.
$9million divided by (~100 cards x ~130 locations) = $692 average withdrawal. This is consistent with some countries having a daily withdrawal limit of $500, others up to $1000.
The only compromised system here appears to be the Worldpay one, so this hypothesis is much more credible than the attacker(s) being able to lift the withdrawal limit across multiple bank systems in multiple countries.
Benedict.