So-many pepsi points, and you could have a harrier. THat was what they said on the commercial (or rather, showed a picture of it, and then showed a # of pepsi points)
A gentlemen got some investors together, gathered enough cash to get the required number of pepsi points (It was around $300,000 I think.... it was low, way, way less than what a harrier would cost, if you could even buy one)
Then he went to pepsi and asked for his jumpjet.
They said no.
He sued them.
He lost.
The judge said it was an OBVIOUS joke and that is was absurd for him to think he would actually get a 10 million dollar military fighter jet for buying pepsi stuff. The judge said that any reasonable person would realize it was a joke, therefore, it was not false advertising.
Besides, he never bought the pepsi stuff in the first place.
Not sure where you heard that.. unless we have different definitions of 'merchant'.
If you sell widgets, and you take payment by visa, and the cardholder says "I never authorized that charge", YOU don't get paid, unless YOU can prove that the charge you put through the system was authorized.
but you don't HAVE to "buy" protection from this kind of fraud; at least in Canada & the US, it is federally guaranteed.
You are not responsible for fraudulent use of your card. Period. At all. In any way. The only way you ARE responsible is usually for up to $50 IF THE CARD ITSELF IS STOLEN., and that's only if the charges happen before you report the card as stolen.
Merchants are hte ones who get stung when cards are used fraudulently, not visa, and not the cardholder.
Credit cards are an entirely different matter than debit cards like switch.
Credit cards don't *NEED* insurance against online theft usually... fraudulent charges are NOT your responsbility, PERIOD.
It is the responsbility of the merchants to ensure that transactions are legit, or they lose out, not you.
A single call from a cardholder declaring a transaction as unauthorized is all it takes to get you off the hook for the cash. They will investigate, of course, but the onus is heavily on the merchant to prove he had authorization to make the charge.
And once again, this is a problem for Visa, not for me.
The onus is on the merchant to PROVE that I authorized those charges, and not the other way around. It SHOULD be like this on every other visa card issuer out there. If it's not, change (i'd be surprised)
IF you see a charge on your card that isn't yours, a single phone call is all that should be required to get rid of it.
WE have to remember, the credit card is the property of the issuer, not the holder. The money was not stolen from you, it was stolen from VISA.
If people want to set up nodes and use layers on it to authenticate, and charge money, that does not preclude someone else from also using wi-fi equipment in the same area.
Yes, there is a density issue, but both parties are affected equally.
Saying "wi-fi should remain free" is absurd. That's like saying "Ethernet should remain free!"
Consider a firewall where the only IP layer things that are seen are actually coming from instances of UML. The host kernel is just running bridging (and filtering, of course) , and doens't even have an IP of it's own.
So your NAT device is actually a UML instance. So hey manage to get root on it.. even so, the traffic to it is filtered at a layer they cannot even see. They just can't get there from, well, there.
UML is not new, though this will certainly make things better.
Just think of the neat firewalling you can do. Run your DNS servers inside a UML session, with traffic to them filtered by firewalling on the host... even if someone breaches BIND, they are stuck in a machine, can't go anywhere, because all traffic to that machine is filtered.
Virtual linux machines for each service that is not performance critical.
That would make sense, except that when companies decide to stop supporting a piece of hardware, they also stop MANUFACTURING and SELLING that piece of hardware.
And they don't make money off second-hand sales.. so..
Beneath all the hype... they are pushing this as a way to connect devices that can't normally take wireless cards.
So it's not necessarily even a bridge. It just does some funky layer-2 stuff and the net effect is that it is like your normally wired device has a wireless card.
You could do this with access points, it's just cheaper.
So really the only new thing here is that it's cheap and tiny.
I read the articlet his time, and I'm STILL confused.
How is this different than the myriad of AP's out there?
Even my little linksys (no, I don't mean the NAT features).... if I use the builtin switch, and some wireless devices, I end up with one layer 2 network that works just fine.. what am I missing here?
Perhaps because it's early in the morning.... but how is bridging a wired to wireless network some kind of 'new' thing? isn't this what an access point usually does?
I know it's what my linksys AP does...
Wouldn't this work equally well in linux or *BSD if you turn on bridging between, say, eth0 and wlan0?
a company doing something propelry instead of putting spin on it?
They admit the FSF informed them of violations, so they pulled the software from the site in order to check it out and get into compliance. They also drop a hint that they will encourage anyone to upgrade to the new compliant version once released.
The Palm device has 12 bit color. Each color sub-pixel (red, green, blue) has 4 bits each, that's 16 shades of color each.
Leaving you with... 4096 colors per pixel.
To claim it does more is to stretch the truth. It is common to accept that when we talk about the # of bits of color, we mean per actual pixel, not sub-pixel.
To group multiple pixels together and then claim it was actually true is just BS
The fuss is they told us it had 16 bit color, and it only has 12 bit color.
That's like selling you a car saying it has 300HP, but in fact, only has 120. what is your argument there, that 300HP is too much anyway, and everyone should be happy?
No. It's fraud, and it's illegal, and they are doing the right thing by offering refunds.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was so obvious that it was stealing...
why was he charged with copyright violation, and not with theft?
So-many pepsi points, and you could have a harrier. THat was what they said on the commercial (or rather, showed a picture of it, and then showed a # of pepsi points)
A gentlemen got some investors together, gathered enough cash to get the required number of pepsi points (It was around $300,000 I think.... it was low, way, way less than what a harrier would cost, if you could even buy one)
Then he went to pepsi and asked for his jumpjet.
They said no.
He sued them.
He lost.
The judge said it was an OBVIOUS joke and that is was absurd for him to think he would actually get a 10 million dollar military fighter jet for buying pepsi stuff.
The judge said that any reasonable person would realize it was a joke, therefore, it was not false advertising.
Besides, he never bought the pepsi stuff in the first place.
Or something rather like that.
So you are talking about bridging 2 wired lans?
And if a bridge doesn't pass MAC addresses, it's not a bridge.
Not sure where you heard that.. unless we have different definitions of 'merchant'.
If you sell widgets, and you take payment by visa, and the cardholder says "I never authorized that charge", YOU don't get paid, unless YOU can prove that the charge you put through the system was authorized.
WEll say your car was going very near C. If you measure the speed of light coming out of your headlights.. it's STILL C.
It's relative, remember?
but you don't HAVE to "buy" protection from this kind of fraud; at least in Canada & the US, it is federally guaranteed.
You are not responsible for fraudulent use of your card. Period. At all. In any way.
The only way you ARE responsible is usually for up to $50 IF THE CARD ITSELF IS STOLEN., and that's only if the charges happen before you report the card as stolen.
Merchants are hte ones who get stung when cards are used fraudulently, not visa, and not the cardholder.
on many cards, the $50 limitation is only if your CARD is used fraudulently... as in, someone steals it and uses it without your permission.
If you read most contracts, you will find you have zero liability if someone scams your number somehow and uses it.
Credit cards are an entirely different matter than debit cards like switch.
Credit cards don't *NEED* insurance against online theft usually... fraudulent charges are NOT your responsbility, PERIOD.
It is the responsbility of the merchants to ensure that transactions are legit, or they lose out, not you.
A single call from a cardholder declaring a transaction as unauthorized is all it takes to get you off the hook for the cash. They will investigate, of course, but the onus is heavily on the merchant to prove he had authorization to make the charge.
And once again, this is a problem for Visa, not for me.
The onus is on the merchant to PROVE that I authorized those charges, and not the other way around. It SHOULD be like this on every other visa card issuer out there. If it's not, change (i'd be surprised)
IF you see a charge on your card that isn't yours, a single phone call is all that should be required to get rid of it.
WE have to remember, the credit card is the property of the issuer, not the holder. The money was not stolen from you, it was stolen from VISA.
I'm not sure where I see the problem here...
it's a protocol/band anyone can use.
If people want to set up nodes and use layers on it to authenticate, and charge money, that does not preclude someone else from also using wi-fi equipment in the same area.
Yes, there is a density issue, but both parties are affected equally.
Saying "wi-fi should remain free" is absurd. That's like saying "Ethernet should remain free!"
But in pratice, that's BS.
If you think the lack of encryption on these things makes them only good for hobbyist use...
Businesses use aim/icq/aol and whatnot all the time, officially or unofficially. Just like they use cleartext email, faxes, and phone calls.
Somethign like this, if it works well, can very well end up on desktops in companies.
Consider a firewall where the only IP layer things that are seen are actually coming from instances of UML.
The host kernel is just running bridging (and filtering, of course) , and doens't even have an IP of it's own.
So your NAT device is actually a UML instance.
So hey manage to get root on it.. even so, the traffic to it is filtered at a layer they cannot even see. They just can't get there from, well, there.
The news here is that it is merged into 2.5
UML is not new, though this will certainly make things better.
Just think of the neat firewalling you can do.
Run your DNS servers inside a UML session, with traffic to them filtered by firewalling on the host... even if someone breaches BIND, they are stuck in a machine, can't go anywhere, because all traffic to that machine is filtered.
Virtual linux machines for each service that is not performance critical.
because THEY want to control how and when stuff is released. They want to sell differently priced versions of things in different countries.
The fact that some japanese game that will NEVER arrive in the US might be wanted by a few westerners is just a byproduct.
That would make sense, except that when companies decide to stop supporting a piece of hardware, they also stop MANUFACTURING and SELLING that piece of hardware.
And they don't make money off second-hand sales.. so..
OKay.
Now I get it.
Beneath all the hype... they are pushing this as a way to connect devices that can't normally take wireless cards.
So it's not necessarily even a bridge. It just does some funky layer-2 stuff and the net effect is that it is like your normally wired device has a wireless card.
You could do this with access points, it's just cheaper.
So really the only new thing here is that it's cheap and tiny.
I read the articlet his time, and I'm STILL confused.
How is this different than the myriad of AP's out there?
Even my little linksys (no, I don't mean the NAT features).... if I use the builtin switch, and some wireless devices, I end up with one layer 2 network that works just fine.. what am I missing here?
Perhaps because it's early in the morning....
but how is bridging a wired to wireless network some kind of 'new' thing?
isn't this what an access point usually does?
I know it's what my linksys AP does...
Wouldn't this work equally well in linux or *BSD if you turn on bridging between, say, eth0 and wlan0?
a company doing something propelry instead of putting spin on it?
They admit the FSF informed them of violations, so they pulled the software from the site in order to check it out and get into compliance. They also drop a hint that they will encourage anyone to upgrade to the new compliant version once released.
Seems like they are playing fair to me.
Isn't this what netscape was after a long time ago? A new development platform to supersedewindows?
isn't this why microsoft hated it so much?
all objects exert gravity.
The Casimir effect is something beyond that.
The DMCA means that even if you crack the protection on the XBOX you own, you are in violation, no?
Becaues a laser turntable is not a digital reader.
The Palm device has 12 bit color. Each color sub-pixel (red, green, blue) has 4 bits each, that's 16 shades of color each.
Leaving you with... 4096 colors per pixel.
To claim it does more is to stretch the truth. It is common to accept that when we talk about the # of bits of color, we mean per actual pixel, not sub-pixel.
To group multiple pixels together and then claim it was actually true is just BS
The fuss is they told us it had 16 bit color, and it only has 12 bit color.
That's like selling you a car saying it has 300HP, but in fact, only has 120.
what is your argument there, that 300HP is too much anyway, and everyone should be happy?
No. It's fraud, and it's illegal, and they are doing the right thing by offering refunds.