Wrong. The merchant's agreement says they are required to check. There's anecdotal evidence that CC companies audit merchants for compliance.
This is false. (Where are you getting your information from?) Not only are they not required to check, both Visa's and Mastercard's policies say that although the merchant may ask for ID, they cannot refuse a transaction if you refuse to show it.
Discover apparently does say that they should check alternate ID if there are any suspicions, although it doesn't require it all the time.
While it's common in the US, both Visa and Mastercard policies say that merchants should not accept a card with "see ID" or similar instead of a signature. Technically, the merchant could be on the hook for fraudulent charges if they accept a card without a signature.
From a practical point of view, I've only heard of refusal to accept a payment because of that once or twice. But the cashiers aren't obligated to check your ID to validate the signature, so you don't have much call to get mad at them because of that.
Are you REALLY buying your own BS, or are you just trolling? As one Linux friendly site easily defines "a year of the desktop where Linux desktop market share suddenly rises in relatively dramatic fashion."
That's their definition. It's by no means a universally-accepted one.
If you want to argue about whether or not particular goals have been met, then you're going to have to define what those goals are and who is trying to achieve them. The phrase "year of linux on the desktop" doesn't do so.
There is no standard for what the "year of Linux on the desktop" means, so it's not possible to move the goalposts. The fallacy that you reference cannot apply.
Linux-based OSs have had reasonably advanced desktop functionality for well over a decade now. Millions of people are using one of them as their primary OS today. The AC is right. Your "year of Linux on the desktop" is the year that you decide to use it.
What utter tosh. How come Netflix can do it for 7.99 a month without ads?
Does Netflix give you everything you want? Then just subscribe to that and be done with it, no more complaining needed.
If not, then the existence of Netflix doesn't really say anything one way or another about whether a similar model works for whatever it is you're interested in.
But you're wrong in your reading of the data as well. There's a vast difference between a region where most schools have average rates, and a region where half are well above & half well below average, even though over all both regions have the same average rate.
Nice try, but the article doesn't say anything about the comparative distribution of vaccination rates between these daycares and the rest of the state.
The alarmist conclusions that they try to draw from the data are invalid, because they do not recognize that it doesn't actually show that Silicon Valley has low vaccination rates.
I don't know whether the author really doesn't understand what the data is telling them, or if they just decided that nobody who reads Wired would be interested in an article that says "Surprise! Vaccinations are important, but parents in Silicon Valley aren't any better or worse about vaccinating their kids than the rest of the country!"
The article title is "Low Vaccination Rates At Silicon Valley Daycare Facilities", but the evidence is actually for average vaccination rates compared to national rates.
That's enough to make the whole thing rather suspect.
I think the crux of the issue on this point is that if the user can override it, the software that just installed a browser extension can likely override it too.
If you're installing malware that installs a browser extension, the malware can probably just replace your browser. Or patch it so that it doesn't flag a disallowed extension even without the override turned on. Or any other number of nasty tricks.
Nope. I have extensions that are no longer in the official app store, or which can't be accessed due to Google's fancy when you try from "outdated" (banned) versions of Chrome and derivatives. There's a big fat message on every single startup when you've side-loaded an extension and clicking is required. The message cannot be turned off and you need to run a developer release.
This is not true in the stable release for Debian. (Source: using it right now, with extensions that aren't from the Chrome web store.) My understanding is that you have to use a command-line switch to enable it in the Windows version, but it is still there.
If you allow user override, then it is a bit that can be flipped by someone or a process other than the user.
Only if your software or system is already otherwise either compromised or hopelessly mis-designed. Given that this is Firefox, the latter might be possible, I guess. But overall, the notion that an already-compromised system could be compromised again is not a particularly strong reason to cripple your software.
Use a nightly or other than stable release.
This is not a good solution for developers who need to test against the stable release builds.
A security feature that can be easily overridden is not a security feature.
That's just stupid. So passwords are not a security feature if you can disable them? Disabling telnet access by default to a computer is not a security feature? Blocking Flash or Javascript in a browser is not a security feature if you can turn them back on? HTTPS access to a web site is not a security feature if you can access it via HTTP?
The default should be the one that is right for most people, but that's no reason to cripple your software for those that have other needs.
Chrome did the same thing months(Maybe even more than a year?) ago.
Chrome allows the user to re-enable installation of unsigned extensions.
The problem in my eyes is not the default requirement that only signed extensions are allowed; the problem is that they don't even allow users to override it.
Even if you're only concerned about development of extensions, it's a terrible idea to say that, essentially, developers can't test and develop with release versions of Firefox.
Well, I wasn't responding to you. Rather I was responding to the guy who claimed that it was my opinion that the vast majority of copyrighted material available via bittorrent or usenet is fairly recent.
Since you apparently need some proof, I went to the Pirate Bay, since it's the torrent site that everyone's heard of.
In the first 150 torrents in the "recent" list, I counted 4 that were created more than 14 years ago. (In fairness, I didn't bother checking the dates on the porn, so it's possible there may have been a few more -- but it's obvious that from this sample it's still way less than 10%.)
I then looked at the top 100 list, which should give a picture of what content is being downloaded most frequently. From that list, there was just 1 from more than 14 years ago.
Just like ShanghaiBill, that's your opinion. My torrent list is a pile of shows from the 60s through to the 80s.
It's not an opinion. Go to any general-use bittorrent tracker, or a usenet index, and count up how much of the available media is recent (within the original 14-year copyright term) versus older. The vast majority will be recent.
Anyone who seriously disputes that needs to spend some time in reality.
and they wonder why there is a 'war on content owners/providers' by torrent/usenet fans.
Widespread piracy of copyrighted material has very little to do with copyright terms being continuously extended. The vast majority of material available on bittorrent and usenet are recent works, not things that would have fallen out of copyright even under 14-year term of original US copyright law.
My thoughts exactly while reading this. If you're not going to say anything more than generic PR-friendly statements that just sidestep the questions, then why bother framing it as an "Ask Slashdot"? Just pay Slashdot a few bucks and have them post a link to your webpage on the Slashdot front page.
No. IBM is not asking for volunteers. They are cutting their under-performers. Employees usually know which of their coworkers are deadwood, and if done right, some pruning can lead to a morale boost. The big risk is if you don't cut deep enough and have to come back for another round.
This certainly was false in my area during the last big round of layoffs. (No word yet on whether we'll be seeing layoffs this time round or not.) High performers were cut as well as low performers. You're right that we know who falls into which category -- and it is very obvious that they're not just cutting underperformers.
In addition, whenever there are ill-conceived layoffs in process, there are always some employees that decide that they have had enough of taking on extra work while waiting for the axe to fall on themselves, and jump ship of their own accord. We've seen a couple of those already, and they tend to be high performers themselves -- since they're the ones who are confident of being able to find another job.
[1]: CS and IT get relatively little respect as a profession compared to others that take as much education and experience. Tell someone you are a veteran IT person, they will immediately ask you what to do because their Windows PC seems slow.
To be fair, tell anybody that you're a doctor and they'll immediately ask you what that weird growth on their foot is.
Any additional taxes will just be added to the sales price, so there's no point in having them.
Sure there's a point. It becomes a hidden tax rather than a visible one, and voters don't get as pissy about those even when they disproportionately affect the poor.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The merchant's agreement says they are required to check. There's anecdotal evidence that CC companies audit merchants for compliance.
This is false. (Where are you getting your information from?) Not only are they not required to check, both Visa's and Mastercard's policies say that although the merchant may ask for ID, they cannot refuse a transaction if you refuse to show it.
Discover apparently does say that they should check alternate ID if there are any suspicions, although it doesn't require it all the time.
Sources:
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf
http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/BM-Entire_Manual_public.pdf
While it's common in the US, both Visa and Mastercard policies say that merchants should not accept a card with "see ID" or similar instead of a signature. Technically, the merchant could be on the hook for fraudulent charges if they accept a card without a signature.
From a practical point of view, I've only heard of refusal to accept a payment because of that once or twice. But the cashiers aren't obligated to check your ID to validate the signature, so you don't have much call to get mad at them because of that.
Are you REALLY buying your own BS, or are you just trolling? As one Linux friendly site easily defines "a year of the desktop where Linux desktop market share suddenly rises in relatively dramatic fashion."
That's their definition. It's by no means a universally-accepted one.
If you want to argue about whether or not particular goals have been met, then you're going to have to define what those goals are and who is trying to achieve them. The phrase "year of linux on the desktop" doesn't do so.
There is no standard for what the "year of Linux on the desktop" means, so it's not possible to move the goalposts. The fallacy that you reference cannot apply.
Linux-based OSs have had reasonably advanced desktop functionality for well over a decade now. Millions of people are using one of them as their primary OS today. The AC is right. Your "year of Linux on the desktop" is the year that you decide to use it.
What utter tosh. How come Netflix can do it for 7.99 a month without ads?
Does Netflix give you everything you want? Then just subscribe to that and be done with it, no more complaining needed.
If not, then the existence of Netflix doesn't really say anything one way or another about whether a similar model works for whatever it is you're interested in.
This isn't a "sign up for something which carries some risk". This is a "you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to die".
Hey, you can say the same thing about the maternity ward at the hospital.
But you're wrong in your reading of the data as well. There's a vast difference between a region where most schools have average rates, and a region where half are well above & half well below average, even though over all both regions have the same average rate.
Nice try, but the article doesn't say anything about the comparative distribution of vaccination rates between these daycares and the rest of the state.
The alarmist conclusions that they try to draw from the data are invalid, because they do not recognize that it doesn't actually show that Silicon Valley has low vaccination rates.
I don't know whether the author really doesn't understand what the data is telling them, or if they just decided that nobody who reads Wired would be interested in an article that says "Surprise! Vaccinations are important, but parents in Silicon Valley aren't any better or worse about vaccinating their kids than the rest of the country!"
The article title is "Low Vaccination Rates At Silicon Valley Daycare Facilities", but the evidence is actually for average vaccination rates compared to national rates.
That's enough to make the whole thing rather suspect.
I think the crux of the issue on this point is that if the user can override it, the software that just installed a browser extension can likely override it too.
If you're installing malware that installs a browser extension, the malware can probably just replace your browser. Or patch it so that it doesn't flag a disallowed extension even without the override turned on. Or any other number of nasty tricks.
Nope. I have extensions that are no longer in the official app store, or which can't be accessed due to Google's fancy when you try from "outdated" (banned) versions of Chrome and derivatives.
There's a big fat message on every single startup when you've side-loaded an extension and clicking is required. The message cannot be turned off and you need to run a developer release.
This is not true in the stable release for Debian. (Source: using it right now, with extensions that aren't from the Chrome web store.) My understanding is that you have to use a command-line switch to enable it in the Windows version, but it is still there.
If you allow user override, then it is a bit that can be flipped by someone or a process other than the user.
Only if your software or system is already otherwise either compromised or hopelessly mis-designed. Given that this is Firefox, the latter might be possible, I guess. But overall, the notion that an already-compromised system could be compromised again is not a particularly strong reason to cripple your software.
Use a nightly or other than stable release.
This is not a good solution for developers who need to test against the stable release builds.
A security feature that can be easily overridden is not a security feature.
That's just stupid. So passwords are not a security feature if you can disable them? Disabling telnet access by default to a computer is not a security feature? Blocking Flash or Javascript in a browser is not a security feature if you can turn them back on? HTTPS access to a web site is not a security feature if you can access it via HTTP?
The default should be the one that is right for most people, but that's no reason to cripple your software for those that have other needs.
Chrome did the same thing months(Maybe even more than a year?) ago.
Chrome allows the user to re-enable installation of unsigned extensions.
Re-read that sentence, specifically the word "special." If it's a special developer build, then it's not the same thing that your users are using.
The problem in my eyes is not the default requirement that only signed extensions are allowed; the problem is that they don't even allow users to override it.
Even if you're only concerned about development of extensions, it's a terrible idea to say that, essentially, developers can't test and develop with release versions of Firefox.
Domain grabbing should be illegal
What harm is being done to society? Even if he just sits on those domains forever, who cares if "email.com" doesn't point to something useful?
#3 sounds like a technical failing that needs to be addressed to make spoofing more difficult.
Making spoofing more difficult would also make it easier to block everyone else engaged in phone fraud.
Which is why it is never going to happen.
Well, I wasn't responding to you. Rather I was responding to the guy who claimed that it was my opinion that the vast majority of copyrighted material available via bittorrent or usenet is fairly recent.
Since you apparently need some proof, I went to the Pirate Bay, since it's the torrent site that everyone's heard of.
In the first 150 torrents in the "recent" list, I counted 4 that were created more than 14 years ago. (In fairness, I didn't bother checking the dates on the porn, so it's possible there may have been a few more -- but it's obvious that from this sample it's still way less than 10%.)
I then looked at the top 100 list, which should give a picture of what content is being downloaded most frequently. From that list, there was just 1 from more than 14 years ago.
Just like ShanghaiBill, that's your opinion. My torrent list is a pile of shows from the 60s through to the 80s.
It's not an opinion. Go to any general-use bittorrent tracker, or a usenet index, and count up how much of the available media is recent (within the original 14-year copyright term) versus older. The vast majority will be recent.
Anyone who seriously disputes that needs to spend some time in reality.
and they wonder why there is a 'war on content owners/providers' by torrent/usenet fans.
Widespread piracy of copyrighted material has very little to do with copyright terms being continuously extended. The vast majority of material available on bittorrent and usenet are recent works, not things that would have fallen out of copyright even under 14-year term of original US copyright law.
My thoughts exactly while reading this. If you're not going to say anything more than generic PR-friendly statements that just sidestep the questions, then why bother framing it as an "Ask Slashdot"? Just pay Slashdot a few bucks and have them post a link to your webpage on the Slashdot front page.
No. IBM is not asking for volunteers. They are cutting their under-performers. Employees usually know which of their coworkers are deadwood, and if done right, some pruning can lead to a morale boost. The big risk is if you don't cut deep enough and have to come back for another round.
This certainly was false in my area during the last big round of layoffs. (No word yet on whether we'll be seeing layoffs this time round or not.) High performers were cut as well as low performers. You're right that we know who falls into which category -- and it is very obvious that they're not just cutting underperformers.
In addition, whenever there are ill-conceived layoffs in process, there are always some employees that decide that they have had enough of taking on extra work while waiting for the axe to fall on themselves, and jump ship of their own accord. We've seen a couple of those already, and they tend to be high performers themselves -- since they're the ones who are confident of being able to find another job.
[1]: CS and IT get relatively little respect as a profession compared to others that take as much education and experience. Tell someone you are a veteran IT person, they will immediately ask you what to do because their Windows PC seems slow.
To be fair, tell anybody that you're a doctor and they'll immediately ask you what that weird growth on their foot is.
We all know where it originates from. Doesn't change the fact that sticking -gate onto the end of every scandal's name is utterly stupid.
It doesn't even make sense. It's not like the Watergate scandal had anything to do with water.
Any additional taxes will just be added to the sales price, so there's no point in having them.
Sure there's a point. It becomes a hidden tax rather than a visible one, and voters don't get as pissy about those even when they disproportionately affect the poor.