I would second Fluke as a general brand, last I looked they had some sweet portable scopes. All I have is a fluke 87, old meter, but works nicely. My first scope was a heathkit someone else built. second one was a tube type (hey, it was cheap, dual, and HF) tek. I now have a somewhat newer dual trace tek. have had to fix it twice tho. dual trace has unexpected advantages... makes it easy to compare and find the problem when one side goes down;)
Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the adapter need to know how much power to draw?
That's actually backwards. The adapter needs to tell the device how much power it's ALLOWED to draw, because the adapter is limited in how much current it can safely provide, and it can vary greatly from charger to charger. For this, there has to be some way for the adapter to communicate with (or at least TO) the device. (communication can be one-way for this basic need) Either do it the expensive and more complex way (USB data), the cheaper way (drop resistors, as is being done now) or not at all. (eliminating the option for different current levels altogether)
Reading the article, it appears that the purpose of the resistors is NOT to lock out manufacturers, but to inform the ipod of the amount of current to draw from the charger. They found different manufacturers using different values of resistors. From the looks of it, one resistor sets the amount, and the other resister serves as a "checksum of sorts, complementing the other resistor correctly to verify the value. Getting the value wrong could very easily cause a fire, so this is important to make sure you get it right.
This is not surprising, as USB does not allow variable voltage, and current is supplied completely on demand with no regard to the provider. So you either have your device set to draw a fixed amount of power (current) and limit your options to *1*, or you develop some simpler way to tell the device how much power (current) a device can demand from any given charger.
The only other option would be to use the data pins and actually communicate over the usb spec normally and outright tell the device how much power to draw. (which is actually already in the USB specs) Apple would have probably preferred to go this route, but that would significantly increase the complexity of the power adapters. All the people that are whining about Apple being nasty about this need to get some education. Apple's other two options were to make chargers cost more, or to not be able to offer both fast (wall power) and slow (AA batts) chargers.
The only group that's more thick-headed than the Apple zealots, are the anti-Apple zealots.
and in the case of an above-ground pool, have a large drain connection to the sewer in case it did.
I rather doubt this was a slow leak. If an above ground pool's wall splits, it'll take about 3 seconds for 95% of the water to leave the pool. What sort of "drain"? did you have in mind to take away that much water that fast?
An open manhole cover in its path couldn't stop even half of that.
BUT, that being said, by the time said wall of water got across the property and to the neighbors, it'd be a few inches tall at most, and spread out very quickly. Unless you were completely downhill from it and close. That would suck.
I thought I read that you could be legally "detained" for up to 24 hrs, at which point they either have to place you under arrest (formally charge you with committing a crime) or let you go. If this is the case, then his three hour detention was not at all illegal.
I've seen at least one example of where this was abused, where someone was detained for 23 hrs, let go, and before they got a block from the police station, was detained again. Judges don't look very kindly on that sort of thing though.
I hope one day someone can go rescue all these poor little waifs
Wasn't it in Total Recall where one of the shots zoomed past one of the rovers on Mars on its way to zoom in on one of the complexes there... complete with a plaque or something beside it?
I'd think if we ever were going to go to mars and bring back samples etc, that thing deserves some space in the trunk. I'd love to see it in a museum here, it's so much more than just history.
How do you suppose the crackers got a hold of Realtek's digital certificate?
My best speculation on that is an actual hacker (or hacker group) managed to extract the private key through nefarious means, possibly via a botnet-controlled or similarly zombified computer inside realtek, and then it was sold on the underground malware market.
It's very unlikely the makers of Stuxnet were actually the ones that stole the key in the first place. Does make one wonder how much such a key would go for? I would expect it to be very expensive, it's at least as good as a zeroday.
You'd think MS would have some very tight restrictions and conditions on how vendors agree to protect their signed keys. I wonder what MS's response to realtek is going to be? Things like this are really damaging to MS's reputation. Even though MS is not generally known for security in the first place, users expected Vista/7 to be better, and afaik it's at risk here also. MS needs to give realtek some smackdown.
But the real irony here may be that MS's standing security issues were probably a factor in realtek losing the key in the first place, so to some degree, MS contributed to this problem.
"Effective August 2010, MS will require all driver signing keys to be stored exclusively on macintosh computers. Use of windows computers, unencrypted backups hosted on windows-accessible networks, and especially usb thumbdrives, will not be allowed." lol... wonder if that will help them?
just because someone has found a novel way to make a lot of money without a lot of work does not entitle everyone in the production chain an even share.
The intended theory is that people earn money based on the worth of the goods or services they produce multiplied by the rarity of the skills required. The (relatively) small amount of work being done to earn that $100k/day does not mean the work is worth $100k/day, it just means that there is something to be taken advantage of causing a disproportionally high return.
If I write code for two days, of relatively equal quality and complexity, and sell each day's code to two different people, and one of them uses it to make $1000 and one of them uses it to make $100,000, it doesn't necessarily mean I should get paid 100x as much for the second job. It means the second guy has found a much more lucrative way to use my code to produce a profit. Now this does usually mean I'll get paid more, but to expect 100x the pay is just unreasonable. That excess money isn't for my brilliance on day 2, it's for the guy that found a way to sell my sand for its weight in gold.
These people that are crying about their "low pay" would be dancing in the streets if their bosses were actually making less than they were, doing the same thing. It all comes back to basic Greed... "He's getting more money than I am, so I must be entitled to some of it." No, not really.
Maybe instead of complaining about they pay, you should try to do your employer's job, since that's obviously where the profit margin you're looking for is at? Oh that's right, you can't DO that, can you? So they obviously have a skill you do not. Maybe that's why they're taking home more money than you? See, that's how life works.
what algorithm were they using? And how were they load balancing? You'd almost have to be doing a bucket sort initially? And there was no detail whatsoever as to the data being sorted. Were they just a crapton of 64 bit words, sentences, database records, what was the data being sorted? I can sort a petabyte in O(1) time if it consists of two records each 1/2pb in size. None of what they've said means anything without getting into the context.
25 cents will drive customers away i agree, but what about 5? Its easier to hide it when you have larger ticket items, 150 before, 160 after and the customer doesn't even notice.
Yep, they'll try to make it look like an inflation thing. It all comes down to whether they can dig out of their hole before the consumers figure out they're overpaying. I don't see BP going under though, the oil industry practically mints money, their cash reserves are obscene and anyone will lend them money.
The only thing they have working against them is everyone in the biz is basically in an unofficial Trust arrangement, everyone sells their product at a lot higher than its actual value should be, and as long as they all keep their prices at the same high level the consumers don't have a choice. This means if BP really wants to jack their prices up, the entire industry will have to go up. Or looked at from the other direction, they can't raise their rates for the same reason they can't lower them. This is not one of those industries where supply-n-demand determine cost - they artificially control the supply so they can adjust the price to where they find it's most profitable. This whole BP mess has got to really be messing with their profit formulas.
So basically what I'm saying is that BP can't skim money from us without the rest of the industry also getting a cut. Which means if it does get passed onto us, we'll be paying for a lot more than BP's costs, which really stinks. The only good option for us (the consumer) is for BP to soak up* the cost of the spill by spending down their reserves*.
I guess you don't understand the basics of economics. If you increase the cost of doing business for a company, they just pass it along to consumers as higher prices to offset the increased bottom line cost.
That makes one very basic (incorrect) assumption, that companies continue to be in business after said events. Consumers aren't always willing to pay for business's mistakes, often times businesses take most of the hit directly because their customers won't tolerate the goods/service costs getting jacked up to pay the extra bills, and the company folds or loses a lot of assets to pay the bill.
What would you do if you usually got your gas at say, BP stations, and suddenly you see BP's stations are a quarter a gallon more expensive than everybody else? Companies can't just always pass stupidity charges straight on to their customers.
I think in principle the DMCA is merely another charge to be tacked on when a crime (copyright violation) has already occurred. Sort of how you can get a heavier charge if you're near a school, use a firearm, are a felon, etc. In this case, if you not only violated copyright, but went well out of your way to do it by "circumventing a protection method". (makes it harder to claim accidental infringement)
But historically it's been getting used as the primary law broken, which was not what it was originally intended for. That's like being charged with being in a school zone, without any proof of your having been speeding. "So would you like to settle with us for having been in the school zone, or do you want to get drug through court to prove your innocence on speeding?"
The unfortunate part is that the law has technically been getting interpreted correctly as written, because it's written backwards in the first place. This judge that overturned on appeal probably interpreted the law for what it was supposed to be, not what it is. Normally I'm against this, but in this case true justice actually prevailed over book justice. As such I'm not sure whether to support this or not. It sets a bad example of how the legal system is supposed to work - that it has to malfunction for fair justice to prevail. I'd be a lot happier seeing the law getting fixed than getting end-run-around. Mainly because this is likely to be an isolated incident.
The entire idea that someone can be charged with circumvention without being charged with copyright violation is just plain backward.
Some manufacturing plants or refineries have razor-thin margins
They choose to operate at those margins. That's the case of a few companies in a given market. If I choose to slash prices at my grocery store so my margins are 1%, I am accepting a serious risk that if several things go wrong at the same time I will be put out of business. That's no reason for anyone to prop me up or give me special favors. I chose to put myself in a position of serious risk and lost a reasonably possible bet. My fault, not your responsibility. Same thing applies here.
I see the article boiling down to a different point -- should vendors be held liable for exploitation of a bug that was brought to them some time ago? Article says they knew about a hardcoded pw two years ago and sat on their thumbs, and then it questions whether this is negligence. There is no question. That is negligence, they will be sued, and they will lose.
Since we keep seeing things like this come up over and over, it seems reasonable to assume that companies like this simple consider things a "calculated risk", and determine the chance of being caught x the cost of being caught is less than the cost of fixing it, and so they do nothing.
The only way to fix this is to increase the average cost so that it becomes greater than the cost of fixing it. To accomplish this, customers should be able to sue vendors that have been informed of critical security flaws in their software that have not fixed it in a timely manner, and there should be specific laws on the books for fines to be levied on companies that manage to not get sued until their refusal to fix their bug is being exploited and harming their customers, to make the resulting legal actions much more expensive than simple lawsuits from individuals. (why aren't these things considered "class action"?)
and don't work well in the mountains unless you and the other guy are both within line of sight of each other. Repeaters can help work around the LoS problem but there probably aren't many in the area you are considering.
jacking up your power can only help so much. it's not like the higher power blasts through the mountains. Higher antennas can help, but if you're already in mountains, you are probably outgunned in the height department.
Some form of satellite is probably going to be your best bet. Or some lower frequency (LF/HF) that will cover variable ground terrain better.
I've seen ubuntu on numerous triple-boot (os x / linux / windows) macbook pros. that's intel though. I don't know how good the open firmware boot selectors are (as opposed to RebelEFI) nor how good ubuntu drivers are for powerpc. But worth looking into.
I have yet to run into a redhat installation on a mac. (referring to the article tag as such)
I used a PMG5 for quite some time as a backup server (rsync) running OS X 10.4 Works very well for that, had lots of attached storage. FW800 FTW. But that got replaced this spring with a used Mac pro - quad 3.0 can be had on ebay for $1500, was well worth it and a welcome update.
Just keep in mind it's an aging machine. Macs in general tend to continue running well beyond their useful life, in terms of processor speed and ram ceiling. At some point you have to listen to the voice of reason when someone says "it's OLD, time to REPLACE it", when you want to reply "but it still WORKS FINE".
That was the first thing that came to my mind. Though on consideration it would take quite a lot to bankrupt MS.
But the unfortunate thing here is there's already a thriving market for zero-day MS bugs. These get bought and sold already on a daily basis on the underground malware networks. You've already got groups of people that make a living out of finding bugs in your software and selling them on that black market. Instead of letting them sell them to people that are basically your competitors, (or at least your PR antichrists) it makes sense to either hire them or become their best customer. either of which them will either kill or severely depress the market for exploits. Once MS becomes a bidder for the exploits, with its deep pockets, that alone will drive a lot of the malware authors out of business because they will no longer be able to afford to bid on a new zero-day to keep their malware effective as MS gets things patched at a highly accelerated rate.
What they have here is an opportunity, and I can't believe they're going to let it slide. Makes me wonder if someone's ego/pride is driving their decision here, rather than good business sense? Even in the short term I don't see any way that this could be anything but a monetary win. Unless they think (again, in their pride and obstinence?) that they're so big now that they don't need to be bothered with improving their image or reputation anymore. Or maybe they've already considered this and it is unfortunately in their best interest to let their customers twist in the wind rather than spend a few bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
had to add that tag to it the moment I read the headline
I would second Fluke as a general brand, last I looked they had some sweet portable scopes. All I have is a fluke 87, old meter, but works nicely. My first scope was a heathkit someone else built. second one was a tube type (hey, it was cheap, dual, and HF) tek. I now have a somewhat newer dual trace tek. have had to fix it twice tho. dual trace has unexpected advantages... makes it easy to compare and find the problem when one side goes down ;)
Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the adapter need to know how much power to draw?
That's actually backwards. The adapter needs to tell the device how much power it's ALLOWED to draw, because the adapter is limited in how much current it can safely provide, and it can vary greatly from charger to charger. For this, there has to be some way for the adapter to communicate with (or at least TO) the device. (communication can be one-way for this basic need) Either do it the expensive and more complex way (USB data), the cheaper way (drop resistors, as is being done now) or not at all. (eliminating the option for different current levels altogether)
Reading the article, it appears that the purpose of the resistors is NOT to lock out manufacturers, but to inform the ipod of the amount of current to draw from the charger. They found different manufacturers using different values of resistors. From the looks of it, one resistor sets the amount, and the other resister serves as a "checksum of sorts, complementing the other resistor correctly to verify the value. Getting the value wrong could very easily cause a fire, so this is important to make sure you get it right.
This is not surprising, as USB does not allow variable voltage, and current is supplied completely on demand with no regard to the provider. So you either have your device set to draw a fixed amount of power (current) and limit your options to *1*, or you develop some simpler way to tell the device how much power (current) a device can demand from any given charger.
The only other option would be to use the data pins and actually communicate over the usb spec normally and outright tell the device how much power to draw. (which is actually already in the USB specs) Apple would have probably preferred to go this route, but that would significantly increase the complexity of the power adapters. All the people that are whining about Apple being nasty about this need to get some education. Apple's other two options were to make chargers cost more, or to not be able to offer both fast (wall power) and slow (AA batts) chargers.
The only group that's more thick-headed than the Apple zealots, are the anti-Apple zealots.
and in the case of an above-ground pool, have a large drain connection to the sewer in case it did.
I rather doubt this was a slow leak. If an above ground pool's wall splits, it'll take about 3 seconds for 95% of the water to leave the pool. What sort of "drain"? did you have in mind to take away that much water that fast?
An open manhole cover in its path couldn't stop even half of that.
BUT, that being said, by the time said wall of water got across the property and to the neighbors, it'd be a few inches tall at most, and spread out very quickly. Unless you were completely downhill from it and close. That would suck.
I thought I read that you could be legally "detained" for up to 24 hrs, at which point they either have to place you under arrest (formally charge you with committing a crime) or let you go. If this is the case, then his three hour detention was not at all illegal.
I've seen at least one example of where this was abused, where someone was detained for 23 hrs, let go, and before they got a block from the police station, was detained again. Judges don't look very kindly on that sort of thing though.
more interesting would be if the museum was built AROUND it where it stopped.
I hope one day someone can go rescue all these poor little waifs
Wasn't it in Total Recall where one of the shots zoomed past one of the rovers on Mars on its way to zoom in on one of the complexes there... complete with a plaque or something beside it?
I'd think if we ever were going to go to mars and bring back samples etc, that thing deserves some space in the trunk. I'd love to see it in a museum here, it's so much more than just history.
ditto++
How do you suppose the crackers got a hold of Realtek's digital certificate?
My best speculation on that is an actual hacker (or hacker group) managed to extract the private key through nefarious means, possibly via a botnet-controlled or similarly zombified computer inside realtek, and then it was sold on the underground malware market.
It's very unlikely the makers of Stuxnet were actually the ones that stole the key in the first place. Does make one wonder how much such a key would go for? I would expect it to be very expensive, it's at least as good as a zeroday.
You'd think MS would have some very tight restrictions and conditions on how vendors agree to protect their signed keys. I wonder what MS's response to realtek is going to be? Things like this are really damaging to MS's reputation. Even though MS is not generally known for security in the first place, users expected Vista/7 to be better, and afaik it's at risk here also. MS needs to give realtek some smackdown.
But the real irony here may be that MS's standing security issues were probably a factor in realtek losing the key in the first place, so to some degree, MS contributed to this problem.
"Effective August 2010, MS will require all driver signing keys to be stored exclusively on macintosh computers. Use of windows computers, unencrypted backups hosted on windows-accessible networks, and especially usb thumbdrives, will not be allowed." lol... wonder if that will help them?
lol.... if Zune was MS's answer to the ipod, seeing what their answer for the iPad is should be downright entertaining
in a very pathetic kind of way...
more shocking still, MS moves to copy their competition!
just because someone has found a novel way to make a lot of money without a lot of work does not entitle everyone in the production chain an even share.
The intended theory is that people earn money based on the worth of the goods or services they produce multiplied by the rarity of the skills required. The (relatively) small amount of work being done to earn that $100k/day does not mean the work is worth $100k/day, it just means that there is something to be taken advantage of causing a disproportionally high return.
If I write code for two days, of relatively equal quality and complexity, and sell each day's code to two different people, and one of them uses it to make $1000 and one of them uses it to make $100,000, it doesn't necessarily mean I should get paid 100x as much for the second job. It means the second guy has found a much more lucrative way to use my code to produce a profit. Now this does usually mean I'll get paid more, but to expect 100x the pay is just unreasonable. That excess money isn't for my brilliance on day 2, it's for the guy that found a way to sell my sand for its weight in gold.
These people that are crying about their "low pay" would be dancing in the streets if their bosses were actually making less than they were, doing the same thing. It all comes back to basic Greed... "He's getting more money than I am, so I must be entitled to some of it." No, not really.
Maybe instead of complaining about they pay, you should try to do your employer's job, since that's obviously where the profit margin you're looking for is at? Oh that's right, you can't DO that, can you? So they obviously have a skill you do not. Maybe that's why they're taking home more money than you? See, that's how life works.
what algorithm were they using? And how were they load balancing? You'd almost have to be doing a bucket sort initially? And there was no detail whatsoever as to the data being sorted. Were they just a crapton of 64 bit words, sentences, database records, what was the data being sorted? I can sort a petabyte in O(1) time if it consists of two records each 1/2pb in size. None of what they've said means anything without getting into the context.
25 cents will drive customers away i agree, but what about 5? Its easier to hide it when you have larger ticket items, 150 before, 160 after and the customer doesn't even notice.
Yep, they'll try to make it look like an inflation thing. It all comes down to whether they can dig out of their hole before the consumers figure out they're overpaying. I don't see BP going under though, the oil industry practically mints money, their cash reserves are obscene and anyone will lend them money.
The only thing they have working against them is everyone in the biz is basically in an unofficial Trust arrangement, everyone sells their product at a lot higher than its actual value should be, and as long as they all keep their prices at the same high level the consumers don't have a choice. This means if BP really wants to jack their prices up, the entire industry will have to go up. Or looked at from the other direction, they can't raise their rates for the same reason they can't lower them. This is not one of those industries where supply-n-demand determine cost - they artificially control the supply so they can adjust the price to where they find it's most profitable. This whole BP mess has got to really be messing with their profit formulas.
So basically what I'm saying is that BP can't skim money from us without the rest of the industry also getting a cut. Which means if it does get passed onto us, we'll be paying for a lot more than BP's costs, which really stinks. The only good option for us (the consumer) is for BP to soak up* the cost of the spill by spending down their reserves*.
I guess you don't understand the basics of economics. If you increase the cost of doing business for a company, they just pass it along to consumers as higher prices to offset the increased bottom line cost.
That makes one very basic (incorrect) assumption, that companies continue to be in business after said events. Consumers aren't always willing to pay for business's mistakes, often times businesses take most of the hit directly because their customers won't tolerate the goods/service costs getting jacked up to pay the extra bills, and the company folds or loses a lot of assets to pay the bill.
What would you do if you usually got your gas at say, BP stations, and suddenly you see BP's stations are a quarter a gallon more expensive than everybody else? Companies can't just always pass stupidity charges straight on to their customers.
I think in principle the DMCA is merely another charge to be tacked on when a crime (copyright violation) has already occurred. Sort of how you can get a heavier charge if you're near a school, use a firearm, are a felon, etc. In this case, if you not only violated copyright, but went well out of your way to do it by "circumventing a protection method". (makes it harder to claim accidental infringement)
But historically it's been getting used as the primary law broken, which was not what it was originally intended for. That's like being charged with being in a school zone, without any proof of your having been speeding. "So would you like to settle with us for having been in the school zone, or do you want to get drug through court to prove your innocence on speeding?"
The unfortunate part is that the law has technically been getting interpreted correctly as written, because it's written backwards in the first place. This judge that overturned on appeal probably interpreted the law for what it was supposed to be, not what it is. Normally I'm against this, but in this case true justice actually prevailed over book justice. As such I'm not sure whether to support this or not. It sets a bad example of how the legal system is supposed to work - that it has to malfunction for fair justice to prevail. I'd be a lot happier seeing the law getting fixed than getting end-run-around. Mainly because this is likely to be an isolated incident.
The entire idea that someone can be charged with circumvention without being charged with copyright violation is just plain backward.
Some manufacturing plants or refineries have razor-thin margins
They choose to operate at those margins. That's the case of a few companies in a given market. If I choose to slash prices at my grocery store so my margins are 1%, I am accepting a serious risk that if several things go wrong at the same time I will be put out of business. That's no reason for anyone to prop me up or give me special favors. I chose to put myself in a position of serious risk and lost a reasonably possible bet. My fault, not your responsibility. Same thing applies here.
I see the article boiling down to a different point -- should vendors be held liable for exploitation of a bug that was brought to them some time ago? Article says they knew about a hardcoded pw two years ago and sat on their thumbs, and then it questions whether this is negligence. There is no question. That is negligence, they will be sued, and they will lose.
Since we keep seeing things like this come up over and over, it seems reasonable to assume that companies like this simple consider things a "calculated risk", and determine the chance of being caught x the cost of being caught is less than the cost of fixing it, and so they do nothing.
The only way to fix this is to increase the average cost so that it becomes greater than the cost of fixing it. To accomplish this, customers should be able to sue vendors that have been informed of critical security flaws in their software that have not fixed it in a timely manner, and there should be specific laws on the books for fines to be levied on companies that manage to not get sued until their refusal to fix their bug is being exploited and harming their customers, to make the resulting legal actions much more expensive than simple lawsuits from individuals. (why aren't these things considered "class action"?)
and don't work well in the mountains unless you and the other guy are both within line of sight of each other. Repeaters can help work around the LoS problem but there probably aren't many in the area you are considering.
jacking up your power can only help so much. it's not like the higher power blasts through the mountains. Higher antennas can help, but if you're already in mountains, you are probably outgunned in the height department.
Some form of satellite is probably going to be your best bet. Or some lower frequency (LF/HF) that will cover variable ground terrain better.
I've seen ubuntu on numerous triple-boot (os x / linux / windows) macbook pros. that's intel though. I don't know how good the open firmware boot selectors are (as opposed to RebelEFI) nor how good ubuntu drivers are for powerpc. But worth looking into.
I have yet to run into a redhat installation on a mac. (referring to the article tag as such)
I used a PMG5 for quite some time as a backup server (rsync) running OS X 10.4 Works very well for that, had lots of attached storage. FW800 FTW. But that got replaced this spring with a used Mac pro - quad 3.0 can be had on ebay for $1500, was well worth it and a welcome update.
Just keep in mind it's an aging machine. Macs in general tend to continue running well beyond their useful life, in terms of processor speed and ram ceiling. At some point you have to listen to the voice of reason when someone says "it's OLD, time to REPLACE it", when you want to reply "but it still WORKS FINE".
That was the first thing that came to my mind. Though on consideration it would take quite a lot to bankrupt MS.
But the unfortunate thing here is there's already a thriving market for zero-day MS bugs. These get bought and sold already on a daily basis on the underground malware networks. You've already got groups of people that make a living out of finding bugs in your software and selling them on that black market. Instead of letting them sell them to people that are basically your competitors, (or at least your PR antichrists) it makes sense to either hire them or become their best customer. either of which them will either kill or severely depress the market for exploits. Once MS becomes a bidder for the exploits, with its deep pockets, that alone will drive a lot of the malware authors out of business because they will no longer be able to afford to bid on a new zero-day to keep their malware effective as MS gets things patched at a highly accelerated rate.
What they have here is an opportunity, and I can't believe they're going to let it slide. Makes me wonder if someone's ego/pride is driving their decision here, rather than good business sense? Even in the short term I don't see any way that this could be anything but a monetary win. Unless they think (again, in their pride and obstinence?) that they're so big now that they don't need to be bothered with improving their image or reputation anymore. Or maybe they've already considered this and it is unfortunately in their best interest to let their customers twist in the wind rather than spend a few bucks.
Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."
Both industries go through a lot of chips.
The days of scammers are ending.
All that we're waiting for is for all the stupid people to disappear
I mean, how long could that possibly take?
10% of something is a lot better than 100% of nothing