I don't see why it would, as far as the person you are paying is concerned, it's a completely normal credit card transaction. They'd only notice a problem if they tried to charge your card twice. On the other end, it just appears on your credit card statement like any other transaction, I don't even think it is highlighted in any way.
The only problem I can think of is if the number got rejected for some reason and that ended up causing non-payment of a bill, and you didn't notice.
I did have a problem once - I ordered a New Scientist subscription on the internet with a single use number and (a few weeks after it started arriving) got a letter saying the credit card had been declined. Possibly they ran an authorisation check first (which used up the single use?) before charging it, or possibly they just left it too late to run the transaction through. (I think the form just collected the number, I don't think there was any 'live' checking on their server.)
Code to web standards and don't use browser blocking scripts.
You seem to have attempted the first, but failed on the second; maybe it just wasn't in your power to influence that decision and you made the best of a bad situation.
Browser detection is bad enough; unfortunately sometimes it is necessary. But always to improve a browser user's experience. Browser blocking based on this is however just plain obnoxious. Just serve up the IE version and let user worry about it - I don't care if the display isn't pixel perfect, it's better than displaying a page telling me to upgrade my browser - to IE. I upgraded *from* IE many years ago.
Checked it in 7.23 and 7.5. It had problems in version 6. Given that the CTO of Opera Software invented CSS during his previous job at W3C it is also eminently possible that ESPN is not valid HTML/CSS. Opera been making more efforts with non-compliant pages recently and even support *both* the aberrations that are BLINK and MARQUEE.
...just something that looked bad and was contrary to the spirit of web standards. I'm an Opera user myself, and occasionally come across sites that specifically redirect me to a 'blocked' page saying that they only support IE or Netscape and telling me to download one or the other. (The site usually ends up working fine in Opera.) I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for doing this.
Shock horror: Everything is more expensive when it first comes out. The fact is, single layer DVD+-Rs are already cheaper than CDs on a per gb basis. DL will also come down in price, and means for less disc swapping during backups.
Here in Europe, I can get DVD-Rs (4.7gb) for €0.50 and CD-Rs (.7gb) for €0.25. This works out at 11c/gb for DVD, 36c/gb for CD. Making DVDs over 3 times cheaper per gb. This is with cheapo DVDs and cheapo CDs, but quality DVDs would still match the cheapo CD per gb price at €1.70 and I can get very good DVD-Rs cheaper than that (e.g. Verbatim for €1 - 1.40, possibly less).
So while waiting for DL makes perfect sense, avoiding SL DVDs makes no sense whatsoever.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but the other two providers posters have mentioned, Cahoot and Discover, also use Orbiscom, along with (to quote from their website) "Discover, MBNA, Citibank, ABN-AMRO, Abbey National, Credit Lyonnais, Swedbank, Citi EU and Nippon Shinpan".
Orbiscom are an Irish company that have pioneered single use credit card numbers, and provide the technology to MBNA and Citi among others. As another poster mentioned, AIB has been providing this service for a number of years now and it's invaluable (although I don't see them promoting it much any more). It works through an application that sits in your tray; you just call it up when you want to pay, enter your username/password, set a limit, and it gives you your single use number. I think they were one of the first banks to provide it; the application is called an 'O-Card' and is as much Orbiscom branded as AIB.
Apparently AMex has stopped offering the service; this article also points out the problem of using such a number to purchase travel if the original credit card is needed to pick up the tickets.
Besides the hacked Herrie version, NEC released an official new 1300A firmware that fixes most of the -R compatibility problems. I haven't had problems writing to any + or -R disc, and I buy the absolute cheapest possible.
You're mad. I drew the line when they introduced DRM onto C64 cassette tapes. I'll stick with my trusty Texas Instruments pocket calculator, thank you very much.
eyeBlog uss ths in4m8ion 2 rec0rd n puhblihs face-2-face convers8ions w/o dvdng teh usrs attntion be2ween teh event bng rec0rded, n teh devIce bng usd 2 rec0rd it.
So *you're* the one that's been filling my inbox with spam.
So you were learning. Changing a tube gets progressively easier, like anything - the most difficult bit is getting the tyre off. Besides, fixing with a patch kit can be even easier - you don't even have to remove the tube. First time I changed tubes it took that long (do you have a good set of tire irons?) If you cycle exclusively in and are never going to be out of a city, then bringing your bike somewhere is fine, I do that myself to save my time. (Note you can severely reduce flat likelihood though kevlar-lined tyres - honestly can't even remember my last flat.) You just don't have that luxury if you decide to set out to parts unknown...
It really depends on what and how much you use your bike. I've got two - one for commuting (e.g. thief bait) and one for touring. I don't tend to work on either if I don't have to (e.g. will bring to the shop), but I can if I must (flats, brakes, pedals, etc.). And that "must" necessity tends to occur when one is far from home - which is what cycling is all about!
The incident I refer to occured in a remote part of Spain after trying to cycle over rough mountain terrain. It involved a 10 mile walk with flat bike to the nearest town, where the local (car) garage was able to patch it. Nearest bike shop was problably more like 200 miles. I've brought a kit since;-)
Recumbentbicycles (random links plucked from Google) have an advantage because above about 15mph the key issue is wind resistance, which they reduce significantly, while also improving comfort.
Recumbents are great on the flat but don't climb so well, so they wouldn't necessarily make a great all-rounder but could suit your circumstances. The low position is not the greatest in traffic either.
One of the issues holding back bike evolution is that the racing organisations have strict restrictions on design regarding what is permitted in races.
Fixing a flat is ridiculously easy, it's the equivalent of opening up Word using Windows. If you don't cycle much, fine, take it to the shop, but if you do, you'd be far better learning the basics. There aren't many 'guys up the street' to be found when you are out touring 25k from the nearest civilisation. (I speak from experience and now know how to fix a flat.)
Quite frankly, if my mates gave me a suitcase nuke and told me to blow up the london underground, i'd have no qualms at all about doing it. 800 years of brutal, racist oppression. it cannot stand
I wouldn't normally reply to something as trollish as this, but I think you honestly belive it.
So Native Americans would be justified in nuking New York? Sounds reasonable.
Islamic terrorists are certainly justified in attacking Spain. The Muslims only got kicked out of Iberia finally in 1492 - well within your 800 years - and that very fact was mentioned as justification by the group that claimed the attack.
Terrorist attacks on English Catholics might be well be justified - Queen Mary was persecuting English Protestants as recently as the 16th century, after all.
And as for Israel, well Palestinian terrorism is obviously completely justified due to the Israeli occupation. (They were there before modern Israel.) But on the same line so are Israeli acts of aggression! (They were there before that.) What a marvelous circular argument that gets us nowhere and just fuels more violence.
Follow your argument back to its logical conclusion and we should all just move back to Africa, where we'd all get along fine. Might have to cull the world population a bit though.
The whole historical card is absolute crap. In what way is Ireland 'your' island precisely? Do you live here? Pay your taxes? Things change. As I said in my title...
*I may be wrong*, but I presume that is to prevent people from producing pass-through programs that use Access as a component and just duplicate Access functionality. As a Studio developer (Enterprise edition only, IIRC?) you can use Access as a component in your compiled software without the end-user having to buy an Access licence. So this is to prevent someone packaging up the Access engine in such a product as a new piece of database software, not preventing you from writing a new database from scratch using Visual Studio.
And if they wanted to go with gestures, why not just use a trackpad instead of 25 buttons?
A 5x5 matrix gives you tactile feedback as to where you are, mirroring the on-screen interface, e.g. it's much easier to "go down two steps and then over one", etc. It's an improvement on a trackpad for this type of interface, e.g. a menu based interface where you don't actually have to manipulate a mouse pointer. From the animation I think this would actually be very easy to use. The problem with the iPod is that you can only go up or down, select or back. So to change the EQ for example you have to go back through lots of menus, select the EQ you want, and then get back again through the menus to the album you were playing*. This Sony device would enable much quicker navigation through the menus. The iPod UI is the best currently available on a digital music jukebox, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems.
...but rather a 5x5 button area that allows for 'gesture' type navigation. Check out the animation here. Personally I think this could be quite intuitive yet powerful. (I'm a great fan of mouse gestures in Opera.)
...the problem is that different tasks are impacted differently by "MHz/FSB/Cache/etc" (not to mention the design of the chip). Obviously performance is also impacted by other system components (memory, hard disk, graphics card, etc). It's impossible to come up with a "single common rating #" - rating for what, exactly? There are however various benchmarks dedicated to measuring performance over 'typical' tasks (e.g. business applications, graphics, Quake III framecount, etc.)
Sure, FLAC can fit 2x as much audio on a CD, but consider the number of CD players out there that play CDDA but not FLAC.
FLAC *will* store approx 2x as much on a hard disk than uncompressed WAV, but only approx 1.5x as much on a CD-ROM compared to an audio CD. This is due to the extra error correction present on CD-ROMs - a full 74-min/650mb audio CD actually contains c. 747mb of audio data. I don't think trading off universal access is worth it for a 1.5x gain.
Having said that, I don't know why they don't just burn the mp3s onto blank CDs (media cost 10-20c?), rather than a $20 thumb drive. Unless they are USB2.0 thumb drives with very fast flash memory, the CD would burn faster in any case.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why it would, as far as the person you are paying is concerned, it's a completely normal credit card transaction. They'd only notice a problem if they tried to charge your card twice. On the other end, it just appears on your credit card statement like any other transaction, I don't even think it is highlighted in any way.
The only problem I can think of is if the number got rejected for some reason and that ended up causing non-payment of a bill, and you didn't notice.
I did have a problem once - I ordered a New Scientist subscription on the internet with a single use number and (a few weeks after it started arriving) got a letter saying the credit card had been declined. Possibly they ran an authorisation check first (which used up the single use?) before charging it, or possibly they just left it too late to run the transaction through. (I think the form just collected the number, I don't think there was any 'live' checking on their server.)
Code to web standards and don't use browser blocking scripts.
You seem to have attempted the first, but failed on the second; maybe it just wasn't in your power to influence that decision and you made the best of a bad situation.
Browser detection is bad enough; unfortunately sometimes it is necessary. But always to improve a browser user's experience. Browser blocking based on this is however just plain obnoxious. Just serve up the IE version and let user worry about it - I don't care if the display isn't pixel perfect, it's better than displaying a page telling me to upgrade my browser - to IE. I upgraded *from* IE many years ago.
Checked it in 7.23 and 7.5. It had problems in version 6. Given that the CTO of Opera Software invented CSS during his previous job at W3C it is also eminently possible that ESPN is not valid HTML/CSS. Opera been making more efforts with non-compliant pages recently and even support *both* the aberrations that are BLINK and MARQUEE.
...just something that looked bad and was contrary to the spirit of web standards. I'm an Opera user myself, and occasionally come across sites that specifically redirect me to a 'blocked' page saying that they only support IE or Netscape and telling me to download one or the other. (The site usually ends up working fine in Opera.) I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for doing this.
Shock horror: Everything is more expensive when it first comes out. The fact is, single layer DVD+-Rs are already cheaper than CDs on a per gb basis. DL will also come down in price, and means for less disc swapping during backups.
Here in Europe, I can get DVD-Rs (4.7gb) for €0.50 and CD-Rs (.7gb) for €0.25. This works out at 11c/gb for DVD, 36c/gb for CD. Making DVDs over 3 times cheaper per gb. This is with cheapo DVDs and cheapo CDs, but quality DVDs would still match the cheapo CD per gb price at €1.70 and I can get very good DVD-Rs cheaper than that (e.g. Verbatim for €1 - 1.40, possibly less).
So while waiting for DL makes perfect sense, avoiding SL DVDs makes no sense whatsoever.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but the other two providers posters have mentioned, Cahoot and Discover, also use Orbiscom, along with (to quote from their website) "Discover, MBNA, Citibank, ABN-AMRO, Abbey National, Credit Lyonnais, Swedbank, Citi EU and Nippon Shinpan".
Here's a list of their clients for anyone who is interested.
Orbiscom are an Irish company that have pioneered single use credit card numbers, and provide the technology to MBNA and Citi among others. As another poster mentioned, AIB has been providing this service for a number of years now and it's invaluable (although I don't see them promoting it much any more). It works through an application that sits in your tray; you just call it up when you want to pay, enter your username/password, set a limit, and it gives you your single use number. I think they were one of the first banks to provide it; the application is called an 'O-Card' and is as much Orbiscom branded as AIB.
Apparently AMex has stopped offering the service; this article also points out the problem of using such a number to purchase travel if the original credit card is needed to pick up the tickets.
Besides the hacked Herrie version, NEC released an official new 1300A firmware that fixes most of the -R compatibility problems. I haven't had problems writing to any + or -R disc, and I buy the absolute cheapest possible.
You're mad. I drew the line when they introduced DRM onto C64 cassette tapes. I'll stick with my trusty Texas Instruments pocket calculator, thank you very much.
eyeBlog uss ths in4m8ion 2 rec0rd n puhblihs face-2-face convers8ions w/o dvdng teh usrs attntion be2ween teh event bng rec0rded, n teh devIce bng usd 2 rec0rd it.
So *you're* the one that's been filling my inbox with spam.
Divide the bucket into two sealed compartments. Fill one compartment fully with water, while leaving the other one empty...
Given that planes have been used in fighting fires for rather some time now, I'm guessing they have considered the problems.
So you were learning. Changing a tube gets progressively easier, like anything - the most difficult bit is getting the tyre off. Besides, fixing with a patch kit can be even easier - you don't even have to remove the tube. First time I changed tubes it took that long (do you have a good set of tire irons?) If you cycle exclusively in and are never going to be out of a city, then bringing your bike somewhere is fine, I do that myself to save my time. (Note you can severely reduce flat likelihood though kevlar-lined tyres - honestly can't even remember my last flat.) You just don't have that luxury if you decide to set out to parts unknown...
It really depends on what and how much you use your bike. I've got two - one for commuting (e.g. thief bait) and one for touring. I don't tend to work on either if I don't have to (e.g. will bring to the shop), but I can if I must (flats, brakes, pedals, etc.). And that "must" necessity tends to occur when one is far from home - which is what cycling is all about!
The incident I refer to occured in a remote part of Spain after trying to cycle over rough mountain terrain. It involved a 10 mile walk with flat bike to the nearest town, where the local (car) garage was able to patch it. Nearest bike shop was problably more like 200 miles. I've brought a kit since ;-)
Heh. My Specialized has a sticker saying 'Designed on Sun Microsystems' immediately followed with 'Made in Taiwan'. How's that for outsourcing?
(It's still a great bike...)
Recumbent bicycles (random links plucked from Google) have an advantage because above about 15mph the key issue is wind resistance, which they reduce significantly, while also improving comfort.
Recumbents are great on the flat but don't climb so well, so they wouldn't necessarily make a great all-rounder but could suit your circumstances. The low position is not the greatest in traffic either.
One of the issues holding back bike evolution is that the racing organisations have strict restrictions on design regarding what is permitted in races.
Fixing a flat is ridiculously easy, it's the equivalent of opening up Word using Windows. If you don't cycle much, fine, take it to the shop, but if you do, you'd be far better learning the basics. There aren't many 'guys up the street' to be found when you are out touring 25k from the nearest civilisation. (I speak from experience and now know how to fix a flat.)
Quite frankly, if my mates gave me a suitcase nuke and told me to blow up the london underground, i'd have no qualms at all about doing it. 800 years of brutal, racist oppression. it cannot stand
I wouldn't normally reply to something as trollish as this, but I think you honestly belive it.
So Native Americans would be justified in nuking New York? Sounds reasonable.
Islamic terrorists are certainly justified in attacking Spain. The Muslims only got kicked out of Iberia finally in 1492 - well within your 800 years - and that very fact was mentioned as justification by the group that claimed the attack.
Terrorist attacks on English Catholics might be well be justified - Queen Mary was persecuting English Protestants as recently as the 16th century, after all.
And as for Israel, well Palestinian terrorism is obviously completely justified due to the Israeli occupation. (They were there before modern Israel.) But on the same line so are Israeli acts of aggression! (They were there before that.) What a marvelous circular argument that gets us nowhere and just fuels more violence.
Follow your argument back to its logical conclusion and we should all just move back to Africa, where we'd all get along fine. Might have to cull the world population a bit though.
The whole historical card is absolute crap. In what way is Ireland 'your' island precisely? Do you live here? Pay your taxes? Things change. As I said in my title...
As the poster mentioned, there wasn't much detail in that speech.
Computerworld and CNet have (slightly) more information, suggesting that the minister was floating the idea of an international treaty to combat spam.
I didn't get that punchline. Someone care to fill me in?
Just Google for "Your idea will not work. Here is why" site:slashdot.org. Frankly I'm surprised it only gets 5 results on slashdot.
*I may be wrong*, but I presume that is to prevent people from producing pass-through programs that use Access as a component and just duplicate Access functionality. As a Studio developer (Enterprise edition only, IIRC?) you can use Access as a component in your compiled software without the end-user having to buy an Access licence. So this is to prevent someone packaging up the Access engine in such a product as a new piece of database software, not preventing you from writing a new database from scratch using Visual Studio.
And if they wanted to go with gestures, why not just use a trackpad instead of 25 buttons?
A 5x5 matrix gives you tactile feedback as to where you are, mirroring the on-screen interface, e.g. it's much easier to "go down two steps and then over one", etc. It's an improvement on a trackpad for this type of interface, e.g. a menu based interface where you don't actually have to manipulate a mouse pointer. From the animation I think this would actually be very easy to use. The problem with the iPod is that you can only go up or down, select or back. So to change the EQ for example you have to go back through lots of menus, select the EQ you want, and then get back again through the menus to the album you were playing*. This Sony device would enable much quicker navigation through the menus. The iPod UI is the best currently available on a digital music jukebox, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems.
*5 back, down, select 'Settings', down, select 'EQ', up/down, select eq setting, back, select 'Browse', select 'Artists', up/down, select artist, up/down, select album, up/down, select song.
...but rather a 5x5 button area that allows for 'gesture' type navigation. Check out the animation here. Personally I think this could be quite intuitive yet powerful. (I'm a great fan of mouse gestures in Opera.)
...the problem is that different tasks are impacted differently by "MHz/FSB/Cache/etc" (not to mention the design of the chip). Obviously performance is also impacted by other system components (memory, hard disk, graphics card, etc). It's impossible to come up with a "single common rating #" - rating for what, exactly? There are however various benchmarks dedicated to measuring performance over 'typical' tasks (e.g. business applications, graphics, Quake III framecount, etc.)
Sure, FLAC can fit 2x as much audio on a CD, but consider the number of CD players out there that play CDDA but not FLAC.
FLAC *will* store approx 2x as much on a hard disk than uncompressed WAV, but only approx 1.5x as much on a CD-ROM compared to an audio CD. This is due to the extra error correction present on CD-ROMs - a full 74-min/650mb audio CD actually contains c. 747mb of audio data. I don't think trading off universal access is worth it for a 1.5x gain.
Having said that, I don't know why they don't just burn the mp3s onto blank CDs (media cost 10-20c?), rather than a $20 thumb drive. Unless they are USB2.0 thumb drives with very fast flash memory, the CD would burn faster in any case.