Yes, if it was your job and MISSION to ensure that the credit card is absolutely and without question the customer's card.
As it currently stands, if I understand correctly, there is only a cursory check done as to the identity if the purchasing party, with the majority of the checking going to "is this a valid account in good standing, with enough room."
If I read the article correctly, I think you're missing the point: This information was not released publicly. Let me put it another way: If you do a search of public records on her property, you will not find her name.
Well, how about her right to privacy? Those documents (with her name on them) are NOT public, probably because she wanted it that way?
So that raises a question: If the documents are not public, a) How did the photographer get that information, b) Why did he release it on his website, and c) Did he release everybody's information, or just hers?
"The guy really doesn't give a rat's ass about "just your house", it's a photographic survey."
The problem (as I understand it) is that he published her name, and assiciated it with her house. That information is not published publicly, and she feels that this violated her rights.
Bah. 14000 licenses are a drop in the bucket. Maybe ONE junior executive won't get a bonus next year.
The monetary value is incidental. The real issue is that Bill Gates wants to come out on top no matter what. It will be very interesting to see what he does next.
Slashdot Mirror
So who'd rather fly a boat than a sexy Stealth?
Yes, if it was your job and MISSION to ensure that the credit card is absolutely and without question the customer's card.
As it currently stands, if I understand correctly, there is only a cursory check done as to the identity if the purchasing party, with the majority of the checking going to "is this a valid account in good standing, with enough room."
VERY good point. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I would agree with that. I guess I just don't understand the technical details enough to know why I can't just do this myself.
Whoa! Whoa! A mirror?? Hello!
You can't just be telling that to all these geeks! Mass hysteria will ensue.
*Brings guest over*
*geek* "Look, instead of a TV, it's a..."
*guest* "Holy hell, make it stop! It burrrrns!"
Yeah, but it's not a MirrorTV. RTA.
Or worse: the government takes over a particular flavor of unix, to prevent a national security issue.
Hahaha! That had me chuckling in an otherwise silent office.
Thanks for allowing everyone to figure out that I wasn't working.
Now if only I could rig this up on everyone's keyboard to shock anyone that wants to remove a hand and continue chatting...
I was thinking more along the lines of the perfect condom.
No, he's saying that the machine PREdetermines whether you'll win or lose, but still states that you have a chance.
Good points. I digress.
If I read the article correctly, I think you're missing the point: This information was not released publicly. Let me put it another way: If you do a search of public records on her property, you will not find her name.
Well, how about her right to privacy? Those documents (with her name on them) are NOT public, probably because she wanted it that way?
So that raises a question: If the documents are not public, a) How did the photographer get that information, b) Why did he release it on his website, and c) Did he release everybody's information, or just hers?
"The guy really doesn't give a rat's ass about "just your house", it's a photographic survey."
The problem (as I understand it) is that he published her name, and assiciated it with her house. That information is not published publicly, and she feels that this violated her rights.
It doesn't run, it floats.
Sorry, I'll just digress now.
It's late and I got no sleep...but I just don't get it.
Hilarious!
Yeah, but I don't *want* to like it, and certainly don't want to be brainwashed into it.
Next thing I know, I'll be drinking 'magic' red lemonade...
For what it's worth: Excellent post.
I believe he's talking about a CD player in his computer, not a rack component.
Bah. 14000 licenses are a drop in the bucket. Maybe ONE junior executive won't get a bonus next year.
The monetary value is incidental. The real issue is that Bill Gates wants to come out on top no matter what. It will be very interesting to see what he does next.
DOS came on a single floppy. Good luck with that.
You nailed it. Same thing as a 'boot strap'.
Too bad you were AC. That was brilliant!