They are saying that if you use the extra three digits for this transaction then they will be more sure that it really is you. On the other hand if it wasn't really you, they'll still happily accept a number without the CVC(or whatever they want to call it, I think CVV is Visa and CVC Mastercard, but they are essentially the same thing).
So how are you more protected? Er, well you aren't. They are probably trialling the acceptability of asking for the extra info in the marketplace and don't want to put people off who are confused by the extra requirement.
In the long term the CVC will add another layer of protection (mostly for the merchants, as they are the one's who bear the cost of most of the fraud) but only when they require it's use (and Visa/Mastercard at least will be demanding this of internet merchants, and possibly all non-signature backed transactions, in the not too distant future.)
Basically all the CVC does is 'prevent' the use of CC generators and the easy lifting of credit card numbers from receipts for later 'anonymous' use.
'Prevent' is probably too strong a word.
If you generate a CC number you still have a 1/1000 chance of getting the right 3 digit CVC, though perhaps the CC companies have an ace up their sleeve to prevent a perl script being used to try all the combinations one by one on sites across the internet.
The CVC is only three digits long and is plainly visible on the signature strip of your card. I don't think it would be too difficult for an unscrupulous sales assistant to remember it and note it down, particularly if the shop isn't that busy.
It is better than nothing though and the dirty secret with e-commerce is that fraud costs merchants big-time and they'll take what they can get to help prevent it.
If you take 19 numbers and stuff them in your database you are in all probability going to be violating your agreement with the credit card company. You aren't allowed to store the final three digits (the CVC) at all.
You're right. I generally do read articles before I post, but in this case I wasn't intending to comment on the article at this stage, just point out where it could be found so other people could also post on topic with eaze. I freely admit that in hindsight my second post is redundant and if it gets marked as such I certainly won't be getting suicidal over it.
Re:GNOME Foundation helping KDE
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 2
Troll Tech has produced a usable product. The GNOME foundation has produced press releases.
Given the age of the GNOME Foundation it's a little unfair to expect them to have produced much else.
In any case, the GNOME Foundation itself is an advisory board, to the world outside GNOME it will probably look like they do little else than release the occasional statement (or press release or propaganda if you prefer).
It's the individual companies that make up the Foundation that we should be expecting things from and it seems to me that many of the newer companies to GNOME are coming to the table with some fairly substantial quantities of code.
In many ways it's better that such contributions come in slowly rather than overwhelming/changing the character of the GNOME project in a massive code drop.
Talking of evolution, the human body and the 'success' of the human race is misleading.
In your original post you state that the immune system 'stops them before they can cause damage'. That's somewhat untrue. The human body (and in fact race) survives by having enough redundancy that it can sustain vast amounts of damage but continue to function and replace the parts that fail.
Evolution works not by choosing intrusion detection as a good method of protecting the individual, but by having enough redundancy and variety such that the failure of a individuals doesn't matter a great deal to the race as a whole.
I don't see that as a good (cost effective) solution for a computer network. Individual parts are likely to contain unique information and cannot simply be recreated after destruction.
That doesn't mean that intrusion detection doesn't have it's place, but using the human body/race as an example to promote it's effectiveness is rather dubious. The human body/race simply 'works' on an entirely different scale with a relatively unlimited amount of resources.
No, not the source code to the installer, but to the packages being downloaded. Does the Helix Gnome Installer make it clear where various packages are being downloaded from (assuming different packages can come from different places) so that end users know where they have the right to get source from (for GPL'd packages)? Or will the Helix Gnome make the retrieval of source for installed packages even easier?
That was an adult DVD wasn't it, and it would be too embarressing to take that to the repair shop or your parents were due back in 30 minutes!
Naturally, nothing like that has ever happened to me. Ever. No matter what anyone else says.
Re:Mixing (L)GPL and non GPL compatible code
on
IBM Releases SashXB
·
· Score: 1
I thought that Gecko was one of the bits also available under gpl, but after further investigation that doesn't seem to be currently true.
There is quite a bit that is dual licensed though and I'd guess that Gecko is one of things they'd concentrate on GPLing first as it is rather central to the whole thing.
Re:Mixing (L)GPL and non GPL compatible code
on
IBM Releases SashXB
·
· Score: 3
Mozilla is now Dual Licensed - MPL and GPL..
Parts of Mozilla are dual licensed.
Plans are underway to release as much of the code as possible with dual licenses.
This relicensing hasn't actually happened yet.
IE may well be good at getting dodgy html to render but it seems they aren't too good at getting what are (presumably, I've never had need to look at them) well defined standards/protocols to work properly. From a server admin point of view the fact that IE chokes on such things is a bit of a pain in the arse. Of course, the end result isn't Microsoft looking bad as the general public will just assume that the server is borked......
If you look at the linked info you will see that:
a) There are in fact 14 scsi devices attached. (13 drives and a cdrom).
b) Even so only 4 of the 24 scsi hosts are actually used (So 20 scsi hosts are being 'wasted', not 10).
Your initial question ('There isnt anything special about 10 drives, so why have 24 scsi buses?') was backwards. They are developing on a big-arse piece of machinery here. The point here isn't making efficient use of 14 scsi devices, it's showing that Linux can run and access 24 scsi buses. Your question should probably have been 'If they want to really show that you can use 24 scsi hosts shouldn't they have a shitload more drives'. Quite possibly for a proper demonstration, but for a dev box then scattering a few drives over a few hosts is probably satisfactory.
because this is just a development system where they are trying to stretch/test the capabilities of the OS and not a production system that needs to be useful/cost-effective?
Some people are way too quick to criticise (or if that wasn't criticism, some people are way too quick to ask stupid questions...).
The only games I've tried have been Bomb Jack and Tetris but they seem to play at a reasonable speed.
I think my main concern if I were to buy the thing would be how well the buttonf would hold up. The date book and address book buttons just don't seem robust enough to take a constant hammering like the Gameboy direction pad.
Thanks Terence, it's always good to hear from the horses mouth.
What about shared memory? Since I upgraded to XFree 4 I seem to be 'running out of it'. I get GDK warnings and enlightenment chucks in the towel with a warning re shared memory if I enable snapshots on the pagers.
If I issue the 'ipcs' command it appears I have two rather hefty 8meg segments assigned to X (though it's possible I'm reading it wrongly).
I toyed with the idea of increasing SHMMAX in the kernel source but it seems to warn against it.
I've found the nVidia drivers to be very good. I'm no X guru by any stretch but I found installing XFree4 with nVidias drivers relatively simple (and about time too, I bought Quake 3 ages ago but couldn't face all the mesa stuff).
Does anybody elses X server show as taking up > 200% of memory in top? Mine does and I'm wondering why...(it doesn't seem to do any harm though I do see the odd complaint about a lack of shared memory).
Slashdot Mirror
Eggheads blurb seems a bit nonsensical.
They are saying that if you use the extra three digits for this transaction then they will be more sure that it really is you. On the other hand if it wasn't really you, they'll still happily accept a number without the CVC(or whatever they want to call it, I think CVV is Visa and CVC Mastercard, but they are essentially the same thing).
So how are you more protected? Er, well you aren't. They are probably trialling the acceptability of asking for the extra info in the marketplace and don't want to put people off who are confused by the extra requirement.
In the long term the CVC will add another layer of protection (mostly for the merchants, as they are the one's who bear the cost of most of the fraud) but only when they require it's use (and Visa/Mastercard at least will be demanding this of internet merchants, and possibly all non-signature backed transactions, in the not too distant future.)
Basically all the CVC does is 'prevent' the use of CC generators and the easy lifting of credit card numbers from receipts for later 'anonymous' use.
'Prevent' is probably too strong a word.
If you generate a CC number you still have a 1/1000 chance of getting the right 3 digit CVC, though perhaps the CC companies have an ace up their sleeve to prevent a perl script being used to try all the combinations one by one on sites across the internet.
The CVC is only three digits long and is plainly visible on the signature strip of your card. I don't think it would be too difficult for an unscrupulous sales assistant to remember it and note it down, particularly if the shop isn't that busy.
It is better than nothing though and the dirty secret with e-commerce is that fraud costs merchants big-time and they'll take what they can get to help prevent it.
If you take 19 numbers and stuff them in your database you are in all probability going to be violating your agreement with the credit card company. You aren't allowed to store the final three digits (the CVC) at all.
You're right. I generally do read articles before I post, but in this case I wasn't intending to comment on the article at this stage, just point out where it could be found so other people could also post on topic with eaze. I freely admit that in hindsight my second post is redundant and if it gets marked as such I certainly won't be getting suicidal over it.
That box is probably a Redhat box. I was looking for Redhat's mirror of the email to share the load and noticed this:
[paulm@beefcake package]$ nslookup gcc.gnu.org
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: gcc.gnu.org
Address: 205.180.83.71
[paulm@beefcake package]$ nslookup sources.redhat.com
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: sources.redhat.com
Address: 205.180.83.71
article at gcc mailing list archive on gnu.org
In any case, the GNOME Foundation itself is an advisory board, to the world outside GNOME it will probably look like they do little else than release the occasional statement (or press release or propaganda if you prefer).
It's the individual companies that make up the Foundation that we should be expecting things from and it seems to me that many of the newer companies to GNOME are coming to the table with some fairly substantial quantities of code.
In many ways it's better that such contributions come in slowly rather than overwhelming/changing the character of the GNOME project in a massive code drop.
Talking of evolution, the human body and the 'success' of the human race is misleading.
In your original post you state that the immune system 'stops them before they can cause damage'. That's somewhat untrue. The human body (and in fact race) survives by having enough redundancy that it can sustain vast amounts of damage but continue to function and replace the parts that fail.
Evolution works not by choosing intrusion detection as a good method of protecting the individual, but by having enough redundancy and variety such that the failure of a individuals doesn't matter a great deal to the race as a whole.
I don't see that as a good (cost effective) solution for a computer network. Individual parts are likely to contain unique information and cannot simply be recreated after destruction.
That doesn't mean that intrusion detection doesn't have it's place, but using the human body/race as an example to promote it's effectiveness is rather dubious. The human body/race simply 'works' on an entirely different scale with a relatively unlimited amount of resources.
The human body may disagree. But that's why we have hospitals, doctors, vaccinations etc. etc. etc....
then curl is your best friend.
No, not the source code to the installer, but to the packages being downloaded.
Does the Helix Gnome Installer make it clear where various packages are being downloaded from (assuming different packages can come from different places) so that end users know where they have the right to get source from (for GPL'd packages)?
Or will the Helix Gnome make the retrieval of source for installed packages even easier?
That was an adult DVD wasn't it, and it would be too embarressing to take that to the repair shop or your parents were due back in 30 minutes!
Naturally, nothing like that has ever happened to me. Ever. No matter what anyone else says.
I thought that Gecko was one of the bits also available under gpl, but after further investigation that doesn't seem to be currently true.
There is quite a bit that is dual licensed though and I'd guess that Gecko is one of things they'd concentrate on GPLing first as it is rather central to the whole thing.
Possibly, but I think the same thing goes for quite a few titles in the 'For Dummies' range. If you can have an E-bay for Dummies........
Oh, and get some good lawyers....
Plans are underway to release as much of the code as possible with dual licenses.
This relicensing hasn't actually happened yet. Ahem....
There's this one and this one.
IE may well be good at getting dodgy html to render but it seems they aren't too good at getting what are (presumably, I've never had need to look at them) well defined standards/protocols to work properly. From a server admin point of view the fact that IE chokes on such things is a bit of a pain in the arse. Of course, the end result isn't Microsoft looking bad as the general public will just assume that the server is borked......
If you look at the linked info you will see that:
a) There are in fact 14 scsi devices attached. (13 drives and a cdrom).
b) Even so only 4 of the 24 scsi hosts are actually used (So 20 scsi hosts are being 'wasted', not 10).
Your initial question ('There isnt anything special about 10 drives, so why have 24 scsi buses?') was backwards. They are developing on a big-arse piece of machinery here. The point here isn't making efficient use of 14 scsi devices, it's showing that Linux can run and access 24 scsi buses. Your question should probably have been 'If they want to really show that you can use 24 scsi hosts shouldn't they have a shitload more drives'. Quite possibly for a proper demonstration, but for a dev box then scattering a few drives over a few hosts is probably satisfactory.
because this is just a development system where they are trying to stretch/test the capabilities of the OS and not a production system that needs to be useful/cost-effective?
Some people are way too quick to criticise (or if that wasn't criticism, some people are way too quick to ask stupid questions...).
Sound familliar?
The only games I've tried have been Bomb Jack and Tetris but they seem to play at a reasonable speed.
I think my main concern if I were to buy the thing would be how well the buttonf would hold up. The date book and address book buttons just don't seem robust enough to take a constant hammering like the Gameboy direction pad.
Indeed, it would be interesting to see what could be achieved with some well placed spans, divs, javascript, DOM1 and style="display:none".
If only I had bugger all to do I might give it a look.
Thanks Terence, it's always good to hear from the horses mouth.
What about shared memory? Since I upgraded to XFree 4 I seem to be 'running out of it'. I get GDK warnings and enlightenment chucks in the towel with a warning re shared memory if I enable snapshots on the pagers.
If I issue the 'ipcs' command it appears I have two rather hefty 8meg segments assigned to X (though it's possible I'm reading it wrongly).
I toyed with the idea of increasing SHMMAX in the kernel source but it seems to warn against it.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
I've found the nVidia drivers to be very good. I'm no X guru by any stretch but I found installing XFree4 with nVidias drivers relatively simple (and about time too, I bought Quake 3 ages ago but couldn't face all the mesa stuff).
Does anybody elses X server show as taking up > 200% of memory in top? Mine does and I'm wondering why...(it doesn't seem to do any harm though I do see the odd complaint about a lack of shared memory).
by using a wireless ethernet system for a battery.
(Yes, I know)