snip First, contrary to popular belief, the sig on the back of the card is not there for identification purposes, but rather to indicate that you accept the terms of your cardholder agreement. If you do not sign the card, you cannot legally use it. Period./snip
this is absolutely inaccurate. i know this because i put 'ask for id' on the back of all my cards. after a store refused to accept it, i called all my credit card companies and asked whether this was valid. they all reported that it was in fact valid, as the signature is present on the card for the specific purpose of ensuring that the presenter of the card is in fact the owner of the card. [that is to say the first line of defence is the shopkeep who verifies that the signature does in fact match] the fact that a. they are never checked, and b. when they actuallly are, apparently my signature looks like the words 'ASK FOR ID'.
[i find it particularly amusing when a shopkeep holds up my card and the receipt, and the reciept says something like 'yay' or 'albert einstein' and my card says ASK FOR ID, and they hand me my credit card and off i go.]
actually i was just looking for a lockpick set the other day and had this question. in almost every state it's only illegal to have a lockpick set if [this is the important part] if the intent to use it maliciously can be proven. from the mit lockpicking guide for example: http://www.lysator.liu.se/mit-guide/appendixB.html
i was trying to find a page that would specifically tell me which states support/do not support automated telemarketing, but this seems to be what there is on this.
http://www.auto-dialers.net/statelaws.html
i think that this is only illegal if you charge for it. i believe that this falls under the same laws as that you see on a rented videotape. it's okay to have some friends over and play it, but when you start making a profit off it, then you tread on legal ground. i'm not totally sure however what would happen if 'some friends' became the company. i think that somewhere in there is a line, although where seems to be very undefined.
this is unbelievable. someone is actually succeeding in getting a bill that makes sense through congress? are we sure they understand what the bill means? yes, that must be it. i think that my brain is not handling this well. no, really, this is actually a good thing, and congress is actually even looking at it? now i'm trying to think if possibly could open the door to something evil. they pass this and then afterward something bad happens based on this. hmm. [if only we could put distributed.net on this one.]
a google search for 'spyware list' turns up some relevent results.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8 &q=spyware+list&btnG=Google+Search
some are better than others. almost all that i have been in contact with are responsive to input as well if you find some new spyware. what i'm not sure about is if there is a master repository that has all spyware on it.
this is a truly disturbing article. it seems to me that the internet has always been a place where opinion, whether justified or not was welcome. if you do not justify your comments, then you are flamebait, and will have to deal with the smackdown [or better yet, having everyone ignore that your post exists]. it's the responsibility of the reader to judge whether the comment is worth its bits. if it isn't then it should be either ignored or disputed. when a corporation is able to sue someone over something that they say online, it only stifles the open environment and also retards any progress that might be made by that article. if a company has poor business practices, then the world should know, and that company deserves to go out of business. this is how progress is made. if i'm a total dick, then i'd personally like to know about it, and why i am a dick so that i might be able to improve myself. i eagerly await the day when a multibilliondollar company swoops out of the sky to an unsuspecting netizen and inquires as to why they are posting negative opinions, and then uses the reasons for those comments to improve themselves.
to provide an example of what i am saying: before any self respecting netizen bids on ebay they check the feedback of the seller. to do otherwise would be absurd. where would ebay be if people were afraid to post negative comments about poor sellers?
Slashdot Mirror
snip /snip
First, contrary to popular belief, the sig on the back of the card is not there for identification purposes, but rather to indicate that you accept the terms of your cardholder agreement. If you do not sign the card, you cannot legally use it. Period.
this is absolutely inaccurate. i know this because i put 'ask for id' on the back of all my cards. after a store refused to accept it, i called all my credit card companies and asked whether this was valid. they all reported that it was in fact valid, as the signature is present on the card for the specific purpose of ensuring that the presenter of the card is in fact the owner of the card. [that is to say the first line of defence is the shopkeep who verifies that the signature does in fact match] the fact that a. they are never checked, and b. when they actuallly are, apparently my signature looks like the words 'ASK FOR ID'.
[i find it particularly amusing when a shopkeep holds up my card and the receipt, and the reciept says something like 'yay' or 'albert einstein' and my card says ASK FOR ID, and they hand me my credit card and off i go.]
that i just scrolled through this thread looking for new links i haven't been to yet?
i spend my life shredding little pieces of paper taped to monitors that say: username: jsmith password: pa$$w0rd
for those users that put a fraction of a second of thought into it, you'll find the little piece of paper taped to the bottom of thier mousepad.
actually i was just looking for a lockpick set the other day and had this question. in almost every state it's only illegal to have a lockpick set if [this is the important part] if the intent to use it maliciously can be proven. from the mit lockpicking guide for example: http://www.lysator.liu.se/mit-guide/appendixB.html
on a related [sort of] note, massachusetts needs a better search engine for their .gov.
i was trying to find a page that would specifically tell me which states support/do not support automated telemarketing, but this seems to be what there is on this. http://www.auto-dialers.net/statelaws.html
i think that this is only illegal if you charge for it. i believe that this falls under the same laws as that you see on a rented videotape. it's okay to have some friends over and play it, but when you start making a profit off it, then you tread on legal ground. i'm not totally sure however what would happen if 'some friends' became the company. i think that somewhere in there is a line, although where seems to be very undefined.
this is unbelievable. someone is actually succeeding in getting a bill that makes sense through congress? are we sure they understand what the bill means? yes, that must be it. i think that my brain is not handling this well. no, really, this is actually a good thing, and congress is actually even looking at it? now i'm trying to think if possibly could open the door to something evil. they pass this and then afterward something bad happens based on this. hmm. [if only we could put distributed.net on this one.]
a google search for 'spyware list' turns up some relevent results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8 &q=spyware+list&btnG=Google+Search
some are better than others. almost all that i have been in contact with are responsive to input as well if you find some new spyware. what i'm not sure about is if there is a master repository that has all spyware on it.
why do i have this image of a robot in an operating room spinning in circles yelling, 'no dissassemble! no dissassemble!'
-unix, because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
this is a truly disturbing article. it seems to me that the internet has always been a place where opinion, whether justified or not was welcome. if you do not justify your comments, then you are flamebait, and will have to deal with the smackdown [or better yet, having everyone ignore that your post exists]. it's the responsibility of the reader to judge whether the comment is worth its bits. if it isn't then it should be either ignored or disputed. when a corporation is able to sue someone over something that they say online, it only stifles the open environment and also retards any progress that might be made by that article. if a company has poor business practices, then the world should know, and that company deserves to go out of business. this is how progress is made. if i'm a total dick, then i'd personally like to know about it, and why i am a dick so that i might be able to improve myself. i eagerly await the day when a multibilliondollar company swoops out of the sky to an unsuspecting netizen and inquires as to why they are posting negative opinions, and then uses the reasons for those comments to improve themselves.
to provide an example of what i am saying:
before any self respecting netizen bids on ebay they check the feedback of the seller. to do otherwise would be absurd. where would ebay be if people were afraid to post negative comments about poor sellers?