Yes that is a nice feature, the problem is that not all banks support this feature yet, and of those that do, some do not support CVV verification on it, which is one of the primary reasons for our $1 auth.
One solution is to let the payment processor store them.
I recently implemented an online payment system for a rather large client. We didn't want to store credit card numbers but had a need to process additional charges at a later date.
We used Paypal's Payflow Pro product (formerly offered by Verisign). They have a feature that allows you to store a reference number with any successful transaction processed. When you want to submit an additional transaction, you just supply this reference number along with the new amount and the credit card details are copied into the transaction data by the processor's system. You can then submit a new sale or auth without having to store the cc number.
Of course one issue with this is that since storing the CVV is prohibited, you cannot verify that this way. So what we do for that is submit a $1 auth at the data entry point, then void that. That allows us to verify the CVV from the customer before processing the transaction and storing the reference.
With this system, if the database is ever compromised the attackers would not be able to use the data to submit charges very easily since all they would have is the reference number which cannot be used on front end web or POS systems. It would only be valid with a backend hook into Paypal's payflow processing system.
With modern technology, the odds are probably better, both because an engine failure that is about to wipe out some of its neighbors can be detected and a shutdown attempted. Second, control systems are much more sophisticated. One can design a system with random engine outs (that is, engines that aren't firing for some reason) that can still fly. We'll see if that's good enough.
There's another important reason their odds are much better. They do extensive test firings of all the engines. With those soviet rockets, the first time the engines were lit was when the vehicle was on the pad attempting to launch.
My guess is that the 27 engine cluster and its plumbing will be fairly tricky
It will be because they are doing propellant crossfeed (this leaves the core stage nearly full when the boosters separate, significantly increasing performance). That is complex and has not been done before.
It has been said any proposal to develop a Saturn V class vehicle (heavy lift of 100 tons or more) is a non-starter. Reasons are development costs would so expensive Congress will never approve such a program.
Congress passed a bill last year that says NASA must build a new rocket titled the Space Launch System with a payload evolvable to 130 tons (Saturn V class), so this statement is not correct.
The great thing about this concept is that it is not a one-off design. Even if there is only a demand for one of these every three to five years, the fact that it is mostly built from Falcon 9 parts (for which there is a proven market) means that it can be available to be built-to-order without much extra overhead.
There would be significant overhead for that low a flight right.
Musk stated in the announcement that to meet the $1000/lb figure it would have to launch at least 4 times per year.
He stated that the rocket will be ready i.e. ready to launch by the end of 2012.
But the actual launch would probably be in 2013 depending on final regulatory hurdles plus any final technical issues encountered with the pad integration.
It actually makes it somewhat easier to get to the moon though, since 2 launches of the Falcon Heavy (what you need to get enough mass for a moon landing) are going to be cheaper than one Saturn V.
You could launch the capsule with one launch and the EDS/lander with a second one, then rendezvous in orbit.
I am the IT manager for a smallish company, and we recently purchased another block of 128 addresses even though we only need some of those right now, since we want to be in a position to accommodate for future growth over the next several years.
And the US is complicit, as long as China keeps paying.
The infrastructure that powers China's firewall (interconnections, deep packet inspection routers, software filters, etc) was built and configured by US corporations.
China is not the only place where economic considerations trump human rights for many people.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can penetrate my security holes.
I hear you have a large set of tools at your disposal.
Yes that is a nice feature, the problem is that not all banks support this feature yet, and of those that do, some do not support CVV verification on it, which is one of the primary reasons for our $1 auth.
One solution is to let the payment processor store them.
I recently implemented an online payment system for a rather large client. We didn't want to store credit card numbers but had a need to process additional charges at a later date.
We used Paypal's Payflow Pro product (formerly offered by Verisign). They have a feature that allows you to store a reference number with any successful transaction processed. When you want to submit an additional transaction, you just supply this reference number along with the new amount and the credit card details are copied into the transaction data by the processor's system. You can then submit a new sale or auth without having to store the cc number.
Of course one issue with this is that since storing the CVV is prohibited, you cannot verify that this way. So what we do for that is submit a $1 auth at the data entry point, then void that. That allows us to verify the CVV from the customer before processing the transaction and storing the reference.
With this system, if the database is ever compromised the attackers would not be able to use the data to submit charges very easily since all they would have is the reference number which cannot be used on front end web or POS systems. It would only be valid with a backend hook into Paypal's payflow processing system.
Last month was the final flight of Discovery. This is the final flight of Endeavour.
To say that design is not actual work is ludicrous.
I assume you are the type of coder that proceeds straight from requirements to hacking something together?
Well the budget has not been passed yet. NASA's budget (whenever it gets one) will include funding for it.
Just to clarify, SpaceX has spent around $800M so far, not $100M.
I tend to agree, SpaceX has had significant delays with the Falcon 9.
I would say they will be in good shape if they lift off anytime in 2013 with this.
There's another important reason their odds are much better. They do extensive test firings of all the engines. With those soviet rockets, the first time the engines were lit was when the vehicle was on the pad attempting to launch.
It will be because they are doing propellant crossfeed (this leaves the core stage nearly full when the boosters separate, significantly increasing performance). That is complex and has not been done before.
Congress passed a bill last year that says NASA must build a new rocket titled the Space Launch System with a payload evolvable to 130 tons (Saturn V class), so this statement is not correct.
There would be significant overhead for that low a flight right.
Musk stated in the announcement that to meet the $1000/lb figure it would have to launch at least 4 times per year.
He stated that the rocket will be ready i.e. ready to launch by the end of 2012.
But the actual launch would probably be in 2013 depending on final regulatory hurdles plus any final technical issues encountered with the pad integration.
It actually makes it somewhat easier to get to the moon though, since 2 launches of the Falcon Heavy (what you need to get enough mass for a moon landing) are going to be cheaper than one Saturn V.
You could launch the capsule with one launch and the EDS/lander with a second one, then rendezvous in orbit.
$1000/lb not $1000/ton.
But yes this is MUCH cheaper than the Saturn V, Shuttle, or anything else really.
That is the first launch from Canaveral.
The first launch will be from Vandenburg, which he stated would likely be in early 2013.
We will but I have no data as of yet as to when our colocation provider will support IPv6.
I am the IT manager for a smallish company, and we recently purchased another block of 128 addresses even though we only need some of those right now, since we want to be in a position to accommodate for future growth over the next several years.
Because it does highlight the absurdity of the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
doh! that's what I get for not reading carefully enough
Another 3 hours and it would have had to cut off its arm to get back online.
Not letting prying eyes see the big-ass CIA satellites that won't fit on anything but a shuttle?
The shuttle does not launch CIA satellites. If they are "big-ass" satellites, the Delta 4 Heavy launches them.
http://wonkette.com/440464/house-republicans-were-just-trying-to-cut-tsunami-monitoring-of-course
Yeah I wasn't saying it was exclusively US companies, but I do know that companies like Cisco played a big part.
And the US is complicit, as long as China keeps paying.
The infrastructure that powers China's firewall (interconnections, deep packet inspection routers, software filters, etc) was built and configured by US corporations.
China is not the only place where economic considerations trump human rights for many people.