What I don't get is why people expect to raise the temperature all the way up to 300C so the ship will burst into flames,
Hell.. remember that Hotel in Las Vegas that did it accidentally?
With the limited accounts to be had and limited info about the circumstances, there are so many possibilities that the myth is impossible to "bust";
without trying to tie the concept down to something specific that was never really claimed.
Perhaps a much lower temperature would suffice, if there were flammables on deck, such as parafin oil, kerosene, alcohol, or paper.
Perhaps the assumption the "death ray" is one device is an unreasonable assumption.
As far as I know "death glass" translates to "glass", not "mirror".
A child can produce the experiment using a simple magnifying glass and a sheet of paper.
e.g. What happens when you have multiple devices concentrating sunlight and shining it on another device
on a lens?
Perhaps the assumption the death ray concentrated sunlight is an unreasonable assumption.
chemicals that could have been burned or reacted to produce higher energy light
Who's to say Archimedes wasn't using a lens to focus the beam of a high-powered laser he had somehow come up with?:)
More importantly, in the article it says the RIR's also finish their part so now we can start building filters which actually work ?
No, that's still a few years off.
The problem with RPKI is it's all well and good, until you realize there has to be a central authority,
and that central authority is vulnerable to influence by governmental and corporate entities.
For example, federal agents sending patriot act security letters demanding to have the encryption keys,
needed to forge resource assignments to themselves, or demanding RIRs "cancel such and such resource"
This could make the RIAA and MPAA very happy, as it could provide them an expeditious way of shutting down any network,
with a much lighter burden than that required to get a court order.
Yeah.. like SSL prevents hackers from hijacking CC details in e-commerce transactions.
RPKI has been in the works for years, and will be in the works for years.
I don't know where the idea "this will be fixed Jan 1" came from.
A pilot program for RPKI is no more an immediate fix than the pilot program for DNSSEC was an immediate fix for security issues,
and no more than the IPv6 pilot program / 6Bone was an immediate fix for IP address exhaustion.
Finalizing a protocol and having pilot programs at the registries is a far cry from having all the vendors implement the solution,
providing a stable proven implementation for network operators, and network operators choosing to upgrade routers to new hardware
that can meet the CPU requirements needed by RPKI, and new software to actually provide the implementation.
And then, even once those things are done, after all the money spent upgrading, it still remains for RPKI to be "turned on" and implemented.
Who will go first? Seriously, this fix is not going to be widely deployed in January.
Well, January 2020 maybe.
After the pilot, this fix is a good 5 years off bare minimum, probably closer to 10.
to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.
It would have to be something more than "I am watching you".
There exist ways for evil people to send things that will scare people, with outright threatening they will injure the person.
If the shopkeeper sent a forged document or other communication to the bank withdrawing a credit card dispute, however,
misrepresenting their identity.... that would seem to be a clear fraud; no different than posing as a bank account owner,
at a teller window, and convincing the bank to let you "withdraw" $500 cash...
You could, but it really depends on what your end goals are. Do you really want to go after pirates, RIAA style, suing a bunch of children and grandmas? Or do you want to make an effort to convert that pirate into a sale?
I don't, but a large software company with a monopoly might want to do so, if they can prove their case.
The revenue from success in court can be higher than selling the product, since it's involuntary on the part of the prospect, and the 'damages' to collect are much higher than the price of the product
Law enforcement is not really going to care about a user running a cracked game...
Forget law enforcement then... if a cracked app collected their information, it could forward that information to the developer's RIAA-style lawyers for lawsuits involving mass numbers of individuals.
Perhaps players running into the vuvuzela problem could use a computer sound card attach to their console's audio out and some of the sound filtering techniques discussed on sixtysymbols to help cope reduce the noise and improve playability.
Its not really any harder to defeat than the primary copy protection; if anything its usually easier. But since it gets missed its gets to mess with pirate copy players for a few months while it gets identified, defeated, and then new cracks are released. Meanwhile there are now bunches of people running the old cracks who might never figure it out... especially if the impact is subtle.
Not harder, but more labor intensive,
And developers are not technically limited to one secondary check, they could add hundreds or thousands in different places and of different natures.
They could add enough secondary checks dispersed all over the place, that it would take a minimum of years to disable.
For any particular cracker [adversary], there's going to be some number of secondary checks to be added, before the cracker gets bored, and gives up trying to defeat them.
Meaning you have success.
However, that takes the crack back to instead of trying to modify or defeat the validation process, or modify the result of validation process --- fool it in an undetectable way instead.
For example, instead of trying to patch the serial number verification routine, find a valid serial number that works, and pre-link the application in an environment,
or through an emulator that will prevent network access, or foil activation by creating fake registry keys to make software think it is already activated.
For any particular hardware feature, there exists some method of emulation or some emulation environment, the software could be run inside,
that would make the feature appear to software running in it.
You know... the whole blue pill security problem...
I'm assuming they intentionally leaked the bugged game to torrent sites, etc.
If they intentionally released it to bittorrent, then (by definition) it is not pirated or illegal, but a buggy legal version of the software.
Of course the developers of the software have the right to distribute it (even buggy versions) of it, so any version distributed by them is non-pirated,
if downloaded from the BT location they uploaded to
Because the point of the crazy schemes is that they CAN'T tell, at least not until the copy the pirate THOUGHT was fully cracked has been widely disseminated.
Sneaky anti-piracy triggers are a brilliant idea. The software could have a well-hidden "phone home" functions based on detecting itself cracked.
as In-house debugging features that are impossible to activate without tampering with the software.
If the device was something like an iPhone with a unique ID, send the IMEI or IP address to the developer, so they can use the information to contact law enforcement.
Thousands of tricks are possible that would make running a cracked copy of the program an extremely bad idea.
In addition, the "cracked" version could timebomb itself when the user say got to a certain level, delete its own executables, and plant a key in the registry designed to make the "cracked" software no longer start
The programmer doesn't get special treatment, just as the marketing person, or the graphic artist, or the supply guru doesn't get special treatment.
And the "idea maker" doesn't get special treatment either, when programmers and others are involved, because they have merely provided a starting point for the design aspects of programming...
providing the starting point has some importance, but it is not equivalent to "defining" the product.
Well, if the product is a piece of marketing, then, yes, the marketing person does get special treatment.
If the product is a piece of graphic art, then, yes, the graphic artist does get special treatment.
As they are (essentially) the sole creator of the product.
If the product is a building design, then, yes, the architect does get special treatment
Now, if the graphic art is just part of the product, then of course, the situation varies.
Programmers, Architects, Designers, and Graphics artists all define the actual core of the product they make.
Whether they get special treatment or not in regards to compensation, will depend on how good a deal they negotiate
Really good Architects, Designers, and Graphics artists
are much more plentiful and easy to find than good programmers who can really execute and implement an idea,
so yeah, programmers have and are expected to have special treatment.
You know who makes six figures a year? The guy who can reduce "C" by five percent.
No... the guy who gets a big enough dataset where the Clog(n)[element_count] efficiency even begins to matter.
To a large extent that can be dealt with by coding a scalable infrastructure, that can be expanded by adding more servers to make up for sort inefficiency.
A great idea that is hacked together will almost certainly be "borrowed" and better implemented by someone else, making them a fortune.
Enter software patents. Which allow you to patent your idea that you hacked together,
so if someone else tries to "borrow" the idea or concept from you and implement it properly,
you will shut them down, and/or get paid for all the trouble, by surrendering fruits of their labor to the patentholder.
I disagree. A terrible idea with a beautifully executed development goes no where. A great idea that is hacked together with shell scripts and kilometers of spaghetti code can make someone a fortune and (lame as it sounds) change the world.
A terrible idea that is beautifully executed can also go somewhere.
But it is extremely rare to find a terrible idea executed well.
The idea will almost certainly be revised (to something better) in the process.
Thus great execution can make up for having an originally poor idea,
as long as the idea changes in the process of the execution.
As for a great idea... if the execution is poor enough, it will never come to fruition.
A mess of shell script and spaghetti code will suffice for a good enough idea.
But in practice, there are very few ideas thought up that are that good.
Most ideas thought up will lie somewhere in between terrible and great,
and most executions will lie somewhere between terrible and great.
The most terrible execution possible cannot be made up by the best idea possible, and vice versa.
Real world efforts always lie somewhere in the middle.
There are massive amounts of good ideas, however.
Executions and business plans are in short supply.
So it is the execution that is valuable.
And if you "just want a programmer" to implement your idea,
you should probably be expecting to sell the idea to the programmer who will provide
the execution, in exchange for a small share of the profits from their great execution..
Otherwise, how would it be worth their while, when there are millions of other idea mean
they can find a good idea from?:)
They can't restrict usage by age, gender, race, or a variety of other means, as they would get sued very heavily for discrimination.
Denial of service at places of public accomadation is allowed. For example, there are restroom facilities that only Women are allowed to use.
Sometimes restrooms for men (or women) are not provided, or sometimes the restrooms for one gender are marked by a sign such as "Out of Order", while the other gender can still obtain restroom service.
As long as they are not in the business of making loans, age discrimination is allowed. Companies can and do discriminate based on age, and auto insurance companies are most famous for this; ask an insurance agent about rates for a 16 year old, a 30 year old, and a 90 year old.
In some cases, the 90 year old may be refused insurance altogether, based on age.
should be very concerned that Assange wants to release it piece meal, ramp up the drama and attention to him and his site as much as possible
I assume the piece meal release has something to do with not indiscriminately releasing everything.
If he were to distribute the data before redacting information, he could jeapordize lives.
He could also jeapordize the integrity of his sources -- Wikileaks claims to have not compromised sources,
by suppressing any information that could identify the source.
If he were to indiscriminately spread the uncensored documents to a distributed system, there would be a risk that something was not redacted that should be redacted, and that it could fall into the wrong hands,
and lead to people's lives being put in jeapordy, or the sources of the leak getting discovered
Also consider the increase to the base cost of every new car sold. It may be a small percentage
Cost to add a $10 Camera and a $50 display to a $10,000 vehicle?
It's less than 1/10 the annual inflation.
The real cost is the cost to retool production of the vehicles, and to add more options and features for the luxury vehicles to differntiate those and maintain market segmentation, since the base vehicle now has to have the advanced features; more features will have to be developed for higher end vehicles to keep people buying those and maintain the profits.
That bit about having to develop new features for higher end vehicles could be the real kicker and increase prices across the board due to the Research and Development expenses.
It could be a 5 - 6 year loss for vehicle makers, and a big loss for the taxpayers due to government holding interest in automakers who are already not in profit and are in the hole still with R and D costs
But what really worries me is putting home theater center in dash. Is it just me or does it seem like little to no consideration is given to how many deaths are caused by driver distraction?
This will be ok, when Google releases their car that can drive itself; so the humans in the two front seats can watch television while their car drives them around, right?:)
Are you saying that one should not blame the theif?
No, but if the thief made a clean getaway and could not be identified, you won't be able to pin the blame.
Also, the shopkeeper enabled the thief by not taking the minimal industry standard practice of moving cash collected to a secure location, such as a safe, a bank, or an off-site vault.
So, if the shopkeeper should make an insurance claim, the insurance company should deny the part of the loss that resulted from shopkeeper negligence.
And the insurance company should pay the part of the loss that was unavoidable, or not caused by negligence (for example, the broken window)
Paypal does not have the right to choose to do business with whomever they want.
Yes, they do.
For example they cannot choose to exclude black people from using their services simply because they're black.
Under the civil rights act, they cannot use race as a basis for making the decision to excluse someone from using their services.
They can refuse to provide services to someone, for almost any other reason.
For example, they can refuse to provide service to people under age 30, or over age 50.
Paypal can refuse to do business with people whose name starts with I, or
that live in certain states, that have political views the company doesn't like, etc.
And no law requires them to state these practices up front.
Just because something is against their TOU, does not force PayPal to refuse to do business.
Just because something doesn't violate their TOU does not necessarily mean PayPal can not or will not refuse future service to a person or organization.
Friggin EXTEND THE TAX CUTS, and STOP SPENDING more money.
Time is limited, and they are wasting it.
Do you house representatives not understand English?
Next up.... the The Federal Back-Orifice Act of 2010.
All federal buildings required to have computers with back orifice installed, plugged into the LAN, not blocked by Firewall, with a published IP address, username, and password, to help reduce load on Internet service provider proxy servers and improve government oversight.
'informs us as customers of web services and cloud computing services that we are never safe from intentional outages when the business interests of our host are challenged.'"
Before entrusting your most precious services and data to the cloud, you better get an ironclad SLA.
An SLA that requires high uptime and is violated by any intentional outage, except under very narrowly taylored conditions.
An SLA that requires not only a refund to you, but a minimum amount of compensation designed to penalize the SP,
and additional compensation for any damage to your business.
An SLA that allows you to require at your option an independent third party, to make the decision if the SLA has been violated and award you the money.
An SLA with built in recourse for the customer to Arbitrators or Courts of law, solely at customer's option, to mediate any dispute.
Narrowly taylored meaning, all possible Network Abuse must be understood by both parties.
And the service provider's recourse for Network "Abuse" is limited, and service can be turned off without long advance notice,
only in emergencies, such as compromised servers/accounts, high volume DoS, high volume Spam sending.
With the SP allowed to respond to phishing sites and malware containing websites on a hosted server, solely by gaining access to that server, removing or disabling malicious file(s) or url(s), and billing the user.
I must admit, Amazon does lose credibility here by passing sentence and taking down their servers when a court has not yet issued any orders.
Wikileaks' practices seem to be possible illegal, but it is not clear that they actually are.
Amazon's SLA is anything but ironclad, so it's Wikileaks fault technically for subscribing to a service that does not carry protections for whatever unpopular things they are doing
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't get is why people expect to raise the temperature all the way up to 300C so the ship will burst into flames,
Hell.. remember that Hotel in Las Vegas that did it accidentally?
With the limited accounts to be had and limited info about the circumstances, there are so many possibilities that the myth is impossible to "bust"; without trying to tie the concept down to something specific that was never really claimed.
Perhaps a much lower temperature would suffice, if there were flammables on deck, such as parafin oil, kerosene, alcohol, or paper.
Perhaps the assumption the "death ray" is one device is an unreasonable assumption. As far as I know "death glass" translates to "glass", not "mirror". A child can produce the experiment using a simple magnifying glass and a sheet of paper.
e.g. What happens when you have multiple devices concentrating sunlight and shining it on another device on a lens?
Perhaps the assumption the death ray concentrated sunlight is an unreasonable assumption. chemicals that could have been burned or reacted to produce higher energy light
Who's to say Archimedes wasn't using a lens to focus the beam of a high-powered laser he had somehow come up with? :)
More importantly, in the article it says the RIR's also finish their part so now we can start building filters which actually work ?
No, that's still a few years off.
The problem with RPKI is it's all well and good, until you realize there has to be a central authority, and that central authority is vulnerable to influence by governmental and corporate entities.
For example, federal agents sending patriot act security letters demanding to have the encryption keys, needed to forge resource assignments to themselves, or demanding RIRs "cancel such and such resource"
This could make the RIAA and MPAA very happy, as it could provide them an expeditious way of shutting down any network, with a much lighter burden than that required to get a court order.
You forgot Phase 6, the "realize it's actually never gonna happen, and admit defeat, or we need a mandatory flag day" phase.
What is the adage? Throwing code at a problem?
Yeah.. like SSL prevents hackers from hijacking CC details in e-commerce transactions.
RPKI has been in the works for years, and will be in the works for years.
I don't know where the idea "this will be fixed Jan 1" came from. A pilot program for RPKI is no more an immediate fix than the pilot program for DNSSEC was an immediate fix for security issues, and no more than the IPv6 pilot program / 6Bone was an immediate fix for IP address exhaustion.
Finalizing a protocol and having pilot programs at the registries is a far cry from having all the vendors implement the solution, providing a stable proven implementation for network operators, and network operators choosing to upgrade routers to new hardware that can meet the CPU requirements needed by RPKI, and new software to actually provide the implementation.
And then, even once those things are done, after all the money spent upgrading, it still remains for RPKI to be "turned on" and implemented.
Who will go first? Seriously, this fix is not going to be widely deployed in January. Well, January 2020 maybe.
After the pilot, this fix is a good 5 years off bare minimum, probably closer to 10.
to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.
It would have to be something more than "I am watching you".
There exist ways for evil people to send things that will scare people, with outright threatening they will injure the person.
If the shopkeeper sent a forged document or other communication to the bank withdrawing a credit card dispute, however, misrepresenting their identity.... that would seem to be a clear fraud; no different than posing as a bank account owner, at a teller window, and convincing the bank to let you "withdraw" $500 cash...
You could, but it really depends on what your end goals are. Do you really want to go after pirates, RIAA style, suing a bunch of children and grandmas? Or do you want to make an effort to convert that pirate into a sale?
I don't, but a large software company with a monopoly might want to do so, if they can prove their case.
The revenue from success in court can be higher than selling the product, since it's involuntary on the part of the prospect, and the 'damages' to collect are much higher than the price of the product
Law enforcement is not really going to care about a user running a cracked game...
Forget law enforcement then... if a cracked app collected their information, it could forward that information to the developer's RIAA-style lawyers for lawsuits involving mass numbers of individuals.
Perhaps players running into the vuvuzela problem could use a computer sound card attach to their console's audio out and some of the sound filtering techniques discussed on sixtysymbols to help cope reduce the noise and improve playability.
Its not really any harder to defeat than the primary copy protection; if anything its usually easier. But since it gets missed its gets to mess with pirate copy players for a few months while it gets identified, defeated, and then new cracks are released. Meanwhile there are now bunches of people running the old cracks who might never figure it out... especially if the impact is subtle.
Not harder, but more labor intensive,
And developers are not technically limited to one secondary check, they could add hundreds or thousands in different places and of different natures. They could add enough secondary checks dispersed all over the place, that it would take a minimum of years to disable.
For any particular cracker [adversary], there's going to be some number of secondary checks to be added, before the cracker gets bored, and gives up trying to defeat them. Meaning you have success.
However, that takes the crack back to instead of trying to modify or defeat the validation process, or modify the result of validation process --- fool it in an undetectable way instead.
For example, instead of trying to patch the serial number verification routine, find a valid serial number that works, and pre-link the application in an environment, or through an emulator that will prevent network access, or foil activation by creating fake registry keys to make software think it is already activated.
For any particular hardware feature, there exists some method of emulation or some emulation environment, the software could be run inside, that would make the feature appear to software running in it.
You know... the whole blue pill security problem...
I'm assuming they intentionally leaked the bugged game to torrent sites, etc.
If they intentionally released it to bittorrent, then (by definition) it is not pirated or illegal, but a buggy legal version of the software. Of course the developers of the software have the right to distribute it (even buggy versions) of it, so any version distributed by them is non-pirated, if downloaded from the BT location they uploaded to
Because the point of the crazy schemes is that they CAN'T tell, at least not until the copy the pirate THOUGHT was fully cracked has been widely disseminated.
Sneaky anti-piracy triggers are a brilliant idea. The software could have a well-hidden "phone home" functions based on detecting itself cracked. as In-house debugging features that are impossible to activate without tampering with the software.
If the device was something like an iPhone with a unique ID, send the IMEI or IP address to the developer, so they can use the information to contact law enforcement. Thousands of tricks are possible that would make running a cracked copy of the program an extremely bad idea.
In addition, the "cracked" version could timebomb itself when the user say got to a certain level, delete its own executables, and plant a key in the registry designed to make the "cracked" software no longer start
So poking yourself in the eye with a really sharp, exquisitely carved and perfectly balanced stick is better than doing it with your finger?
The results aren't better, but you will learn more.
That might be the first step towards inventing laser eye surgery.
That might also be the first step towards developing safety glasses to protect against sharp sticks.
The programmer doesn't get special treatment, just as the marketing person, or the graphic artist, or the supply guru doesn't get special treatment.
And the "idea maker" doesn't get special treatment either, when programmers and others are involved, because they have merely provided a starting point for the design aspects of programming... providing the starting point has some importance, but it is not equivalent to "defining" the product.
Well, if the product is a piece of marketing, then, yes, the marketing person does get special treatment.
If the product is a piece of graphic art, then, yes, the graphic artist does get special treatment. As they are (essentially) the sole creator of the product.
If the product is a building design, then, yes, the architect does get special treatment
Now, if the graphic art is just part of the product, then of course, the situation varies.
Programmers, Architects, Designers, and Graphics artists all define the actual core of the product they make. Whether they get special treatment or not in regards to compensation, will depend on how good a deal they negotiate
Really good Architects, Designers, and Graphics artists are much more plentiful and easy to find than good programmers who can really execute and implement an idea, so yeah, programmers have and are expected to have special treatment.
You know who makes six figures a year? The guy who can reduce "C" by five percent.
No... the guy who gets a big enough dataset where the Clog(n)[element_count] efficiency even begins to matter.
To a large extent that can be dealt with by coding a scalable infrastructure, that can be expanded by adding more servers to make up for sort inefficiency.
A great idea that is hacked together will almost certainly be "borrowed" and better implemented by someone else, making them a fortune.
Enter software patents. Which allow you to patent your idea that you hacked together, so if someone else tries to "borrow" the idea or concept from you and implement it properly, you will shut them down, and/or get paid for all the trouble, by surrendering fruits of their labor to the patentholder.
I disagree. A terrible idea with a beautifully executed development goes no where. A great idea that is hacked together with shell scripts and kilometers of spaghetti code can make someone a fortune and (lame as it sounds) change the world.
A terrible idea that is beautifully executed can also go somewhere.
But it is extremely rare to find a terrible idea executed well. The idea will almost certainly be revised (to something better) in the process. Thus great execution can make up for having an originally poor idea, as long as the idea changes in the process of the execution.
As for a great idea... if the execution is poor enough, it will never come to fruition.
A mess of shell script and spaghetti code will suffice for a good enough idea. But in practice, there are very few ideas thought up that are that good.
Most ideas thought up will lie somewhere in between terrible and great, and most executions will lie somewhere between terrible and great.
The most terrible execution possible cannot be made up by the best idea possible, and vice versa.
Real world efforts always lie somewhere in the middle.
There are massive amounts of good ideas, however. Executions and business plans are in short supply.
So it is the execution that is valuable.
And if you "just want a programmer" to implement your idea, you should probably be expecting to sell the idea to the programmer who will provide the execution, in exchange for a small share of the profits from their great execution..
Otherwise, how would it be worth their while, when there are millions of other idea mean they can find a good idea from? :)
They can't restrict usage by age, gender, race, or a variety of other means, as they would get sued very heavily for discrimination.
Denial of service at places of public accomadation is allowed. For example, there are restroom facilities that only Women are allowed to use. Sometimes restrooms for men (or women) are not provided, or sometimes the restrooms for one gender are marked by a sign such as "Out of Order", while the other gender can still obtain restroom service.
As long as they are not in the business of making loans, age discrimination is allowed. Companies can and do discriminate based on age, and auto insurance companies are most famous for this; ask an insurance agent about rates for a 16 year old, a 30 year old, and a 90 year old.
In some cases, the 90 year old may be refused insurance altogether, based on age.
A note on the wall says 'MAGIC WORD XYZZY'.
Have you ever bought a car?! It may _cost_ that much, but I bet they will charge $500 minimum.
Yeah, and with the thing included, they will have to find something new to make optional and charge that extra 500 for.
should be very concerned that Assange wants to release it piece meal, ramp up the drama and attention to him and his site as much as possible
I assume the piece meal release has something to do with not indiscriminately releasing everything.
If he were to distribute the data before redacting information, he could jeapordize lives. He could also jeapordize the integrity of his sources -- Wikileaks claims to have not compromised sources, by suppressing any information that could identify the source.
If he were to indiscriminately spread the uncensored documents to a distributed system, there would be a risk that something was not redacted that should be redacted, and that it could fall into the wrong hands, and lead to people's lives being put in jeapordy, or the sources of the leak getting discovered
Also consider the increase to the base cost of every new car sold. It may be a small percentage
Cost to add a $10 Camera and a $50 display to a $10,000 vehicle?
It's less than 1/10 the annual inflation.
The real cost is the cost to retool production of the vehicles, and to add more options and features for the luxury vehicles to differntiate those and maintain market segmentation, since the base vehicle now has to have the advanced features; more features will have to be developed for higher end vehicles to keep people buying those and maintain the profits.
That bit about having to develop new features for higher end vehicles could be the real kicker and increase prices across the board due to the Research and Development expenses.
It could be a 5 - 6 year loss for vehicle makers, and a big loss for the taxpayers due to government holding interest in automakers who are already not in profit and are in the hole still with R and D costs
But what really worries me is putting home theater center in dash. Is it just me or does it seem like little to no consideration is given to how many deaths are caused by driver distraction?
This will be ok, when Google releases their car that can drive itself; so the humans in the two front seats can watch television while their car drives them around, right? :)
Are you saying that one should not blame the theif?
No, but if the thief made a clean getaway and could not be identified, you won't be able to pin the blame.
Also, the shopkeeper enabled the thief by not taking the minimal industry standard practice of moving cash collected to a secure location, such as a safe, a bank, or an off-site vault.
So, if the shopkeeper should make an insurance claim, the insurance company should deny the part of the loss that resulted from shopkeeper negligence.
And the insurance company should pay the part of the loss that was unavoidable, or not caused by negligence (for example, the broken window)
Paypal does not have the right to choose to do business with whomever they want.
Yes, they do.
For example they cannot choose to exclude black people from using their services simply because they're black.
Under the civil rights act, they cannot use race as a basis for making the decision to excluse someone from using their services.
They can refuse to provide services to someone, for almost any other reason.
For example, they can refuse to provide service to people under age 30, or over age 50.
Paypal can refuse to do business with people whose name starts with I, or that live in certain states, that have political views the company doesn't like, etc.
And no law requires them to state these practices up front.
Just because something is against their TOU, does not force PayPal to refuse to do business. Just because something doesn't violate their TOU does not necessarily mean PayPal can not or will not refuse future service to a person or organization.
Friggin EXTEND THE TAX CUTS, and STOP SPENDING more money.
Time is limited, and they are wasting it.
Do you house representatives not understand English?
Next up.... the The Federal Back-Orifice Act of 2010.
All federal buildings required to have computers with back orifice installed, plugged into the LAN, not blocked by Firewall, with a published IP address, username, and password, to help reduce load on Internet service provider proxy servers and improve government oversight.
'informs us as customers of web services and cloud computing services that we are never safe from intentional outages when the business interests of our host are challenged.'"
Before entrusting your most precious services and data to the cloud, you better get an ironclad SLA. An SLA that requires high uptime and is violated by any intentional outage, except under very narrowly taylored conditions. An SLA that requires not only a refund to you, but a minimum amount of compensation designed to penalize the SP, and additional compensation for any damage to your business.
An SLA that allows you to require at your option an independent third party, to make the decision if the SLA has been violated and award you the money.
An SLA with built in recourse for the customer to Arbitrators or Courts of law, solely at customer's option, to mediate any dispute.
Narrowly taylored meaning, all possible Network Abuse must be understood by both parties. And the service provider's recourse for Network "Abuse" is limited, and service can be turned off without long advance notice, only in emergencies, such as compromised servers/accounts, high volume DoS, high volume Spam sending.
With the SP allowed to respond to phishing sites and malware containing websites on a hosted server, solely by gaining access to that server, removing or disabling malicious file(s) or url(s), and billing the user.
I must admit, Amazon does lose credibility here by passing sentence and taking down their servers when a court has not yet issued any orders. Wikileaks' practices seem to be possible illegal, but it is not clear that they actually are.
Amazon's SLA is anything but ironclad, so it's Wikileaks fault technically for subscribing to a service that does not carry protections for whatever unpopular things they are doing