There is probably still a great deal of unpatched openSSL deployments out there..
I think you miss the GP point. I believe the GP is saying that the site could have been exploited for a while and the damage has already been done. The check just tell us that the site has been patched but NOT tell us how much the damage is done to users. As a result, some users do not know that their username/password have already been stolen by the exploitation (which is not caused by the user). I doubt that there is a gray area allowed in security. Once the security is breached, there is no guarantee to say that everything is now fine after the fixed/patched.
Hmm.. I found this one on TFA... I guess it does not matter whether any emails belong to NJ people but rather focus on the effect on NJ people.
The government argued that New Jersey was proper because 4,500 e-mail addresses were obtained from residents there. The authorities claimed that even if the venue was improper, is should be disregarded because it did "not affect substantial rights."
I neither agree nor disagree with your point because there is an unclear factor to me -- nature of work. The nature of police work in this case is similar to a field work (outside the office) which is very difficult to have a good quality control system. Of course, you would need to give a lee way and at the same time has a certain trust level to these people. For an office work, it is a lot different because the employer would have more control on quality check. So the monitoring may or may not be a bad quality control system for the police.
The original NES must have raised a generation of cold-blooded killers.
I thought it was Atari? Or even the one before which I cannot remember what it is called... I like the one that you played as a ghost and go through each room to collect stuff...
If employers were allowed to fire people simply because they "didn't wanted them around" do you think we would end up in a good society?
you mean if people were free to choose to hire and associate with whomever they wish we would end up with a "bad society"? Lolwut?
I would disagree to both of your questions/answers. Actually, the cause (allow firing employees) and the consequence (good/bad society) are NOT that correlated! In other words, allowing to fire an employee when the employer does not like does NOT result in either good or bad society! There are a lot of factors involved in either good or bad society. Judging and conclude the result on only this cause is too oversimplified...
I think your point is off if you are arguing for Apple. The only thing I think that they might try to use is in their Claim 1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display. Remember, a patent abstract means NOTHING. You need to look at its claim only. They specified that it is to unlock a hand-held electronic device which is quite specific, and that is different from the video which is a touch screen in general. Other than that (the part of unlocking functionality, using image to do it, the way that the touch must continuously stay on the screen, etc.), nothing is really non-obvious for the method because it is very similar to the video. If Apple is trying to argue on their image use, then they need a design patent for that because I am not sure that a utility patent could represent the case well.
Brick & Mortor [sic] at their local bank. Many still do it this way today given the security nightmare that online banking has suffered recently.
May or may not be. Often times, any bank security breach is from a user, not from the system. In other words, both client or the employee causes the security breach to the system ( http://money.msn.com/saving-mo... ). Many who use the online banking understand the convenience they get plus the time saving. As long as they properly use it (i.e. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.co... ), the security stuff would never be an issue.
Again, a trip to the lawyer's office...
I agree that the legal forms should be done via a person/lawyer. However, there are other applications/forms that you could simply fill in via the Internet rather than write/fill in a physical form. It is much more convenience, faster, and could be cheaper (no envelope and stamp). And one thing I feel that it is very convenient to use the Internet is to file/submit tax return!
That's why God invented schools...
School nowadays require students to submit/accept their work via the Internet/Intranet. It is a lot more convenience and It is NOT only for MOOC style which to me is still in at immature state. Therefore, giving out assignment/homework via hand out or on the board is much less convenient to both teachers and students. The Internet is there, why not utilize it?
NOAA Weather Radio...
I have no comment on this one because I do not check for the weather. However, on one note about "radio" in your comment, many people nowadays do NOT listen to their radio box but rather listen to the "Internet radio" instead. See the word "Internet"?
Phone call to broker...
May or may not get the information quickly. Also, those people would need to check on the INTERNET. Or do you think they need to call another person to get the answer for you? So why would you go through the middle man if you can get it directly?
USPS/ UPS/ FedEx Same Day Delivery...
Not unless you need the document (regardless certified or prototype) within an hour and you need to deliver across the country. Also, these carrier do NOT GUARANTEE that your document will be delivered on the "same day." There are many cases already that they cannot do what they advertised. Most documents nowadays are in digital format. If it does not need real signature on it or certified, why spend money on carrier and time for delivery? Physical delivery is NOT what Internet is for. Maybe you are still stuck in the hard copied world.
Overall, the Internet has been absorbed into the society long enough to be a part of the society; especially in the 1st world countries. I would not reject the idea of its necessity due to its benefits. I will wait and see how it evolves. I am quite sure that it will be one of utility that human will need to live on.
I found you are stereotyping people. I have seen and known many different gay people that are so different from very nice to very annoying. Yes, there are some that are annoying and they make very loud noise to public, so they seem to be the most prominent because they are acting out. As a result, some people (including you) let this stereotype sink in and use it against them.
Back to the TFA, it does not and should not matter to you whether they want to boycott the browser because of the company CEO. If they choose to do so, what impact do you get? Are you a member of that site so that you do not want to change your browsing browser? It is their business. If it works for them, then good for them. If it does not work, then too bad. Why would you put your foot in the matter? Seriously? Just acknowledge what they want to do and move on. You may not need to care for if it is none of your business.
By the way, just because the TFA mentions about a web browser, it does not mean that it should belong to this forum...
I would not make a hasten decision to change the bank but rather consider other things else with them, such as how well their services, how well and fast for their customer service, how secure (in my sense) and ease of use for their web site (if I use online service), etc. If I am still satisfied with their services, I would rather not change the bank.
The reason I would not simply jump from a bank to another because I may not know what the other bank I am going to switch to would have the similar issue in the future. It could be Murphy laws situation that I run away from a bank that has this issue to another bank that has the similar issue again. Besides, this bank have had the issue already, so they should have already known how to fix it faster next time.
Wouldn't the Streisand Effect in this context imply that more developers are going to be placing their AWS/API keys in plain view?
I think his meaning is that there would be more people searching/looking for the secret-key which is in plain text. If I remember correctly, Streisand Effect is the effect of trying to hide something from others, but instead it becomes more obvious to public because of certain disclosure. In this case, the AWS disclosed the information which is supposed to be hidden from public. Now it is obvious to others.
I think there are too many people who do not think but rather take whatever modified information in and believe it. If they are somewhat in the middle (not extreme to either left or right), they would be sceptical to any news like this.
First, the author of TFA has bias toward the far right. Therefore, the summarized information given in TFA is to both feed the same mind (right wing) and attack Democrat party. Even though I am not all for the current President, I feel that TFA is not telling the whole truth but rather oversimplify the raw data and exaggerate the analysis toward the author bias.
Let's look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/site... which is the data cited by TFA. It shows how much money, in each category, is distributed toward directly individual expenses. In the file, it shows that the highest payout to individual is Social Security ($807m) which is still much higher than the health & Medicare combined last year. The $430m is paid out to disability and pension [ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/... ].
If you are going to argue about the amount of Medicare expenses going up from $200s millions in 2001 to $600s million in 2014, then I am guessing you are still blind with your bias. What you need to do is to create a line graph for Medicare expenses from the year 1999 to 2014. Then, look at the rate of change (line slope) and THINK. You will see that there is not much different in the line slope from 2004 to 2008 and 2008 to 2014. In other words, during the second term of Bush administration, the expenses were going up as fast (if not faster) as the Obama administration.
Therefore, the TFA is giving only the true raw data but analyses it badly by applying his bias. This kind of analysis ticks me off because it is similar to telling a lie with omission. When someone said it is all good, I doubt it is that good and may look for the catch. If I couldn't find the catch, I will give a benefit of the doubt. When someone said it is all bad, I would look into it because I want to verify the person's judgement regardless his or her credential. Error is in human nature and even a smart person could be wrong from time to time...
You can look at their whois http://whois.domaintools.com/0... and you could see that there are things going on with the domain name in the past 2 years (ignore the privacy part)...
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence officials are planning a sweeping system of electronic monitoring that would tap into government, financial and other databases to scan the behavior of many of the 5 million federal employees with secret clearances, current and former officials told The Associated Press.
That's from TFA. According to the quote, "federal employees with secret clearances" are NOT contractors unless you are calling those contractors as "federal" employees (which is incorrect).
Computer Science is an exceptionally narrow field that has broad, nearly ubiquitous application, and it has absolutely nothing to do with programming... or computers
Umm... Not really. It relates to Computer but not in depth either hardware or software but rather conceptual/algorithm of programming. If you do programming, you would relate it to computer in some senses.
Programming is programming, it is not computer science
I agree with this part. Computer Science is not about programming. The programming part is only to illustrate that you understand the concept/algorithm of what you learn or discover.
ok its basically math
Ummm No? Even though CS involves maths, it is not maths. In order to prove any algorithm, yes you must use maths to illustrate it; however, it is NOT maths. If you said so, then Physics is maths and should not be called Physics?
I think it is case-by-case whether or not you could exercise the 1st amendment. In general, you would need their consensus to allow you to publicly publish (i.e. TV shows needs to get those who are in the show signed the agreement or they have to blur their faces). To me, consensus is a legal protection to say that I cannot be sued by you because you legally give me permission to do so. If you do not get their permission, then you must realize that you may face a law suit if those who are in your picture are too self-conscious to be in the picture. When that happens, it becomes the court's duty to determine whether your use is a fair use or freedom of speech.
Therefore, no it is not in general in any states as you cited from the WikiPedia. And no it is not, in general, illegal to use your media for profit. In general, it is a legal risk to use it without permission whether or not it is for profit!
(In case you missed it, Im referring to you're asinine assumption that anyone who believes in some form of Creator is an ultra-conservative, anti-science, knuckle-dragger. The world is not that black&white)
I am confused with this comment. Did the OP said that? Or was it your assumption? To me, I do not see the implication to what you said. I am seeing the implication of those who believe in certain things (Earth is less than 10,000 years old) and will not open their eyes to new knowledges (technologies). I guess some may see the same implication as you are seeing.
However, I still see that the survey is inadequate and unqualified to be any useful survey. The method of survey is bad, the credential of those who do the survey is not up to par, the analysis of the data is too oversimplified, etc. Therefore, the result/analysis does not and cannot reflect or represent the whole.
The popularity is not equal to quality as you said. The problem with your expression is that you give no information about why it is crap but rather attack the application itself. "research where to store the most important part of their application" is a vague information for those who are not familiar with what you are talking about. Your post looks too much like mud-slinger post from a politician - "it is bad" and that's the only thing you need to know. If you really want people to stop using it, be more professional and educate the readers.
Also, all programs/applications have its own advantages and disadvantages. There are reasons why many people use them even though they have flaws. Anyone who use them MUST BE EDUCATED to know what good and bad of the programs/applications. If one can talk only the bad side, the one needs to educate oneself to find out what the good side they have because otherwise no one would ever use the programs/applications. A history of the programs/applications could help explaining as well.
So if you think everyone else is a joke and lazy, you are not that much different in the way of explanation.
PS: I am not saying MySQL is neither good nor bad, but it has its own use under certain situations.
PSS: If you are trying to express your anger, at least you could write in proper English without foul language in every single sentence.
Don't be ridiculous. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
I appreciate your optimistic. However, I feel that you are on an extreme side because you said "nothing can go wrong"; where as, the OP is on the other side because of "The end is nigh!".
My concern is not about right now, but it is about what if. Reviving something that has gone for a long time from the world would open up many different events that could be both good and bad because everything has an impact on one another. The impact could be very little and seems to be none, or it could be very significant. Right now, we know nothing. If the impact is good or neutral, there is nothing to be worried about. What if it is bad and significant even though it could be extremely rare? It is similar to that you have a group of people. You need only one bad apple in the whole crowd to cause trouble. This situation is similar to it -- only one bad impact could cause a serious trouble.
Therefore, I would be a bit concern but not panic. In other words, I will have to keep an eye on what they are doing and will not completely trust what news they produced; however, I do not protest them to stop what they want to do...
May or may not be. However, I disagree to use legal to intervene the issue because it is easily abusable in the future. If the rich person can afford it, be it because it is not my problem (and should not be yours).
And by the way, the rich person they are talking about is a woman!
The company, he said, had assigned an employee to cater just to that whale, to ensure that she was always satisfied with the game and therefore likely to keep coming back.
Slashdot Mirror
There is probably still a great deal of unpatched openSSL deployments out there..
I think you miss the GP point. I believe the GP is saying that the site could have been exploited for a while and the damage has already been done. The check just tell us that the site has been patched but NOT tell us how much the damage is done to users. As a result, some users do not know that their username/password have already been stolen by the exploitation (which is not caused by the user). I doubt that there is a gray area allowed in security. Once the security is breached, there is no guarantee to say that everything is now fine after the fixed/patched.
The government argued that New Jersey was proper because 4,500 e-mail addresses were obtained from residents there. The authorities claimed that even if the venue was improper, is should be disregarded because it did "not affect substantial rights."
I neither agree nor disagree with your point because there is an unclear factor to me -- nature of work. The nature of police work in this case is similar to a field work (outside the office) which is very difficult to have a good quality control system. Of course, you would need to give a lee way and at the same time has a certain trust level to these people. For an office work, it is a lot different because the employer would have more control on quality check. So the monitoring may or may not be a bad quality control system for the police.
Ah OK. ;) Thanks.
The original NES must have raised a generation of cold-blooded killers.
I thought it was Atari? Or even the one before which I cannot remember what it is called... I like the one that you played as a ghost and go through each room to collect stuff...
.FFF.
.3[]3.
.1[]1.
What's the problem with that? The '1' can't have 2 unopened, right? The solution is...
.FFF.
.3.3.
.1F1.
If employers were allowed to fire people simply because they "didn't wanted them around" do you think we would end up in a good society?
you mean if people were free to choose to hire and associate with whomever they wish we would end up with a "bad society"? Lolwut?
I would disagree to both of your questions/answers. Actually, the cause (allow firing employees) and the consequence (good/bad society) are NOT that correlated! In other words, allowing to fire an employee when the employer does not like does NOT result in either good or bad society! There are a lot of factors involved in either good or bad society. Judging and conclude the result on only this cause is too oversimplified...
but it's the best I've got in stock.
And I think the quote above from him would be the reason why he voted 'again'. ;)
I think your point is off if you are arguing for Apple. The only thing I think that they might try to use is in their Claim 1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display. Remember, a patent abstract means NOTHING. You need to look at its claim only. They specified that it is to unlock a hand-held electronic device which is quite specific, and that is different from the video which is a touch screen in general. Other than that (the part of unlocking functionality, using image to do it, the way that the touch must continuously stay on the screen, etc.), nothing is really non-obvious for the method because it is very similar to the video. If Apple is trying to argue on their image use, then they need a design patent for that because I am not sure that a utility patent could represent the case well.
Brick & Mortor [sic] at their local bank. Many still do it this way today given the security nightmare that online banking has suffered recently.
May or may not be. Often times, any bank security breach is from a user, not from the system. In other words, both client or the employee causes the security breach to the system ( http://money.msn.com/saving-mo... ). Many who use the online banking understand the convenience they get plus the time saving. As long as they properly use it (i.e. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.co... ), the security stuff would never be an issue.
Again, a trip to the lawyer's office...
I agree that the legal forms should be done via a person/lawyer. However, there are other applications/forms that you could simply fill in via the Internet rather than write/fill in a physical form. It is much more convenience, faster, and could be cheaper (no envelope and stamp). And one thing I feel that it is very convenient to use the Internet is to file/submit tax return!
That's why God invented schools...
School nowadays require students to submit/accept their work via the Internet/Intranet. It is a lot more convenience and It is NOT only for MOOC style which to me is still in at immature state. Therefore, giving out assignment/homework via hand out or on the board is much less convenient to both teachers and students. The Internet is there, why not utilize it?
NOAA Weather Radio...
I have no comment on this one because I do not check for the weather. However, on one note about "radio" in your comment, many people nowadays do NOT listen to their radio box but rather listen to the "Internet radio" instead. See the word "Internet"?
Phone call to broker...
May or may not get the information quickly. Also, those people would need to check on the INTERNET. Or do you think they need to call another person to get the answer for you? So why would you go through the middle man if you can get it directly?
USPS/ UPS/ FedEx Same Day Delivery...
Not unless you need the document (regardless certified or prototype) within an hour and you need to deliver across the country. Also, these carrier do NOT GUARANTEE that your document will be delivered on the "same day." There are many cases already that they cannot do what they advertised. Most documents nowadays are in digital format. If it does not need real signature on it or certified, why spend money on carrier and time for delivery? Physical delivery is NOT what Internet is for. Maybe you are still stuck in the hard copied world.
Overall, the Internet has been absorbed into the society long enough to be a part of the society; especially in the 1st world countries. I would not reject the idea of its necessity due to its benefits. I will wait and see how it evolves. I am quite sure that it will be one of utility that human will need to live on.
I found you are stereotyping people. I have seen and known many different gay people that are so different from very nice to very annoying. Yes, there are some that are annoying and they make very loud noise to public, so they seem to be the most prominent because they are acting out. As a result, some people (including you) let this stereotype sink in and use it against them.
Back to the TFA, it does not and should not matter to you whether they want to boycott the browser because of the company CEO. If they choose to do so, what impact do you get? Are you a member of that site so that you do not want to change your browsing browser? It is their business. If it works for them, then good for them. If it does not work, then too bad. Why would you put your foot in the matter? Seriously? Just acknowledge what they want to do and move on. You may not need to care for if it is none of your business.
By the way, just because the TFA mentions about a web browser, it does not mean that it should belong to this forum...
I would not make a hasten decision to change the bank but rather consider other things else with them, such as how well their services, how well and fast for their customer service, how secure (in my sense) and ease of use for their web site (if I use online service), etc. If I am still satisfied with their services, I would rather not change the bank.
The reason I would not simply jump from a bank to another because I may not know what the other bank I am going to switch to would have the similar issue in the future. It could be Murphy laws situation that I run away from a bank that has this issue to another bank that has the similar issue again. Besides, this bank have had the issue already, so they should have already known how to fix it faster next time.
Wouldn't the Streisand Effect in this context imply that more developers are going to be placing their AWS/API keys in plain view?
I think his meaning is that there would be more people searching/looking for the secret-key which is in plain text. If I remember correctly, Streisand Effect is the effect of trying to hide something from others, but instead it becomes more obvious to public because of certain disclosure. In this case, the AWS disclosed the information which is supposed to be hidden from public. Now it is obvious to others.
I think there are too many people who do not think but rather take whatever modified information in and believe it. If they are somewhat in the middle (not extreme to either left or right), they would be sceptical to any news like this.
First, the author of TFA has bias toward the far right. Therefore, the summarized information given in TFA is to both feed the same mind (right wing) and attack Democrat party. Even though I am not all for the current President, I feel that TFA is not telling the whole truth but rather oversimplify the raw data and exaggerate the analysis toward the author bias.
Let's look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/site... which is the data cited by TFA. It shows how much money, in each category, is distributed toward directly individual expenses. In the file, it shows that the highest payout to individual is Social Security ($807m) which is still much higher than the health & Medicare combined last year. The $430m is paid out to disability and pension [ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/... ].
If you are going to argue about the amount of Medicare expenses going up from $200s millions in 2001 to $600s million in 2014, then I am guessing you are still blind with your bias. What you need to do is to create a line graph for Medicare expenses from the year 1999 to 2014. Then, look at the rate of change (line slope) and THINK. You will see that there is not much different in the line slope from 2004 to 2008 and 2008 to 2014. In other words, during the second term of Bush administration, the expenses were going up as fast (if not faster) as the Obama administration.
Therefore, the TFA is giving only the true raw data but analyses it badly by applying his bias. This kind of analysis ticks me off because it is similar to telling a lie with omission. When someone said it is all good, I doubt it is that good and may look for the catch. If I couldn't find the catch, I will give a benefit of the doubt. When someone said it is all bad, I would look into it because I want to verify the person's judgement regardless his or her credential. Error is in human nature and even a smart person could be wrong from time to time...
You can look at their whois http://whois.domaintools.com/0... and you could see that there are things going on with the domain name in the past 2 years (ignore the privacy part)...
Based on inflation, don't take less than $53K starting.
According to prevailing wage for an H1B person, the fresh graduated person would get his/her salary at $56,597/year in New York, NY [ http://www.flcdatacenter.com/O... ], $42,806/year in Boise, ID [ http://www.flcdatacenter.com/O... ], and $72,613/year in San Francisco, CA [ http://www.flcdatacenter.com/O... ]. So it all depends on where you live...
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence officials are planning a sweeping system of electronic monitoring that would tap into government, financial and other databases to scan the behavior of many of the 5 million federal employees with secret clearances, current and former officials told The Associated Press.
That's from TFA. According to the quote, "federal employees with secret clearances" are NOT contractors unless you are calling those contractors as "federal" employees (which is incorrect).
Computer Science is an exceptionally narrow field that has broad, nearly ubiquitous application, and it has absolutely nothing to do with programming... or computers
Umm... Not really. It relates to Computer but not in depth either hardware or software but rather conceptual/algorithm of programming. If you do programming, you would relate it to computer in some senses.
Programming is programming, it is not computer science
I agree with this part. Computer Science is not about programming. The programming part is only to illustrate that you understand the concept/algorithm of what you learn or discover.
ok its basically math
Ummm No? Even though CS involves maths, it is not maths. In order to prove any algorithm, yes you must use maths to illustrate it; however, it is NOT maths. If you said so, then Physics is maths and should not be called Physics?
I think it is case-by-case whether or not you could exercise the 1st amendment. In general, you would need their consensus to allow you to publicly publish (i.e. TV shows needs to get those who are in the show signed the agreement or they have to blur their faces). To me, consensus is a legal protection to say that I cannot be sued by you because you legally give me permission to do so. If you do not get their permission, then you must realize that you may face a law suit if those who are in your picture are too self-conscious to be in the picture. When that happens, it becomes the court's duty to determine whether your use is a fair use or freedom of speech.
Therefore, no it is not in general in any states as you cited from the WikiPedia. And no it is not, in general, illegal to use your media for profit. In general, it is a legal risk to use it without permission whether or not it is for profit!
So corsets are hardware?
I prefer it is a set of a core. A core is not necessary to be hardware...
(In case you missed it, Im referring to you're asinine assumption that anyone who believes in some form of Creator is an ultra-conservative, anti-science, knuckle-dragger. The world is not that black&white)
I am confused with this comment. Did the OP said that? Or was it your assumption? To me, I do not see the implication to what you said. I am seeing the implication of those who believe in certain things (Earth is less than 10,000 years old) and will not open their eyes to new knowledges (technologies). I guess some may see the same implication as you are seeing.
However, I still see that the survey is inadequate and unqualified to be any useful survey. The method of survey is bad, the credential of those who do the survey is not up to par, the analysis of the data is too oversimplified, etc. Therefore, the result/analysis does not and cannot reflect or represent the whole.
The popularity is not equal to quality as you said. The problem with your expression is that you give no information about why it is crap but rather attack the application itself. "research where to store the most important part of their application" is a vague information for those who are not familiar with what you are talking about. Your post looks too much like mud-slinger post from a politician - "it is bad" and that's the only thing you need to know. If you really want people to stop using it, be more professional and educate the readers.
Also, all programs/applications have its own advantages and disadvantages. There are reasons why many people use them even though they have flaws. Anyone who use them MUST BE EDUCATED to know what good and bad of the programs/applications. If one can talk only the bad side, the one needs to educate oneself to find out what the good side they have because otherwise no one would ever use the programs/applications. A history of the programs/applications could help explaining as well.
So if you think everyone else is a joke and lazy, you are not that much different in the way of explanation.
PS: I am not saying MySQL is neither good nor bad, but it has its own use under certain situations.
PSS: If you are trying to express your anger, at least you could write in proper English without foul language in every single sentence.
Don't be ridiculous. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
I appreciate your optimistic. However, I feel that you are on an extreme side because you said "nothing can go wrong"; where as, the OP is on the other side because of "The end is nigh!".
My concern is not about right now, but it is about what if. Reviving something that has gone for a long time from the world would open up many different events that could be both good and bad because everything has an impact on one another. The impact could be very little and seems to be none, or it could be very significant. Right now, we know nothing. If the impact is good or neutral, there is nothing to be worried about. What if it is bad and significant even though it could be extremely rare? It is similar to that you have a group of people. You need only one bad apple in the whole crowd to cause trouble. This situation is similar to it -- only one bad impact could cause a serious trouble.
Therefore, I would be a bit concern but not panic. In other words, I will have to keep an eye on what they are doing and will not completely trust what news they produced; however, I do not protest them to stop what they want to do...
May or may not be. However, I disagree to use legal to intervene the issue because it is easily abusable in the future. If the rich person can afford it, be it because it is not my problem (and should not be yours).
And by the way, the rich person they are talking about is a woman!
The company, he said, had assigned an employee to cater just to that whale, to ensure that she was always satisfied with the game and therefore likely to keep coming back.
From my understanding, "What states ban cell phone talking while driving?" != "Is there any state that bans all cell phone use for all drivers?"