This is not second hand knowledge. I now use USBSwiper and have used it at a trade show on my laptop with a Verizon wireless connection. It worked perfectly. From an administrative perspective, I've never had a merchant credit card account that was so easy to use. From an economic perspective, PayPal charges a flat rate for all transactions - 2.9% of the sale plus.30 per transaction. There is a $30 monthly fee which can be turned off anytime if the merchant is closed for the season, on vacation, or any reason.
That's an entire 1% higher than my card processing, and my card processing doesn't have a monthly fee (it does have a minimum commission - which means if I don't run up $30 - $40 locally, but probably about $30 USD - worth of transaction fees, they charge the minimum anyway). PayPal definitely loses on the economy point there. I'm also protected from stolen cards because the processor uses 3DS authentication, meaning that the card issuer eats it if a transaction is charged back due to someone claiming it's a stolen card, not me. PayPal would just rip that transaction right back, leaving me out of pocket.
Most consumers understand that the merchant pays for the acceptance of credit cards; what they don't understand is that their affinity card or rewards card costs the merchant more per transaction than a standard credit card, or what is called a "qualified" card. All non-qualified cards are charged more. Want to take a guess how many cards are now deemed "qualified"? Out of every 100 cards swiped, maybe 10 to 15 are qualified, which means they are charged at the lowest discount rate. All others are non-qualified and cost the merchant more. Add on fees such as statement fee, "abuse of system" fees (it's real) and anything else the card processors can cook up and the real cost of card acceptance can be as high as 6% - 8% or more.
In this country, we also don't have any such thing as "Qualified Cards" - it's all the same discount rate (you can opt for unblended rate, which means you pay different amounts for Visa than for MasterCard, but the banks generally discourage that for smaller vendors). We also don't get any fees other than the declared fees (the monthly minimum charge, and the gateway transaction charges). So to me, a transaction is 2ish percent, and that's it.
I didn't say they used the same code, because I would not be able to provide evidence of that, not having access to either source code. What I was saying is that it is functionally identical (does the same thing), in response to node 3 claiming that it does something completely different.
They also check that it doesn't contain any porn, that it doesn't crash, that it does what it says, no violence unless it's declared, no bad language...
Actually, they pretty much check for whatever Apple check for, minus a few things.
Lastly the offering from apple is not the same kind of wireless sync that the App author created, it Syncs not to a users computer, but to the cloud, along with allowing even iOS upgrades with wireless..
Incorrect. Apple is introducing wireless sync in that when your iPhone comes in range of the wireless network your PC running iTunes on it will automatically sync with it over WiFi, removing the need to connect to the PC with a USB cable. iCloud is something completely different again.
How is it an issue security wise? Or even configuration wise? The iPhone (and some Androids) support Exchange Web Services and Exchange ActiveSync right out of the box. All you need to be doing is sticking an Ex2007 Frontend server at the back of your DMZ, expose it over HTTPS to the internet, and you have yourself a fully iPhone and Android friendly Exchange implementation, with push email, calendaring, and pretty much every feature except rich text emails ready to roll for any employee with an NT logon and a mailbox (with the "Mobile Client Access" permission enabled, of course). And if that wasn't enough for your security, attaching that iPhone or Android device to your Exchange server in such a way makes it subject to your Exchange server's security policies - such as password requirement on the device, remote wipe capability, and all that.
Not 100% true. In fact, we've got stores around here that during the interview process they give you a hypothetical set of requirements handed to you by a customer, and they ask you what you'd recommend. The interview ends right then and there if you say "the expensive one".
The real thing? What, a real phone? You'll need to be more specific... there's iPhones, Samsung Galaxy phones, a couple of rather nice Acer and Dell phones actually...
(For what it's worth, I once handed my iPhone 4 and my Huawei IDEOS - running Android 2.2 - to my mother, to see which she found easier. She actually considers the iPhone harder to use - and this is someone that only stopped asking for directions to shut down the computer last year).
How is maths relevant here? You can't mathematically determine intent or any other kind of psychological premise.
Basically, what's ultra crazy is you. You demonstrate an astonishing ignorance of reality. For that matter, you demonstrate an absolutely astronomical ignorance of mathematics if you believe you can mathematically determine whether a person would do without or purchase a product if the piracy option were not available. Even statistics (which is hardly "simply mathematics") gets hazy when one of the factors is "human choice".
You can't speak for anyone other than yourself. Not even "the overwhelming majority".
For you to claim that you can say with a straight face "the overwhelming majority of people who pirate something would not have paid for it anyway" means that the record companies are allowed to use the same bald faced lie to support their own viewpoint, because you've shown that basically, it's OK to lie about your position, and that their opponents in the battle have the same complete lack of respect for the public as they do, and that their opponents (again, that's you guys) have the same complete lack of moral fibre.
The people who would get the files via P2P were never your customers. You weren't selling anything to them before, you're selling exactly the same amount of nothing to them now. It's costing you nothing to sell this nothing. You lose nothing.
I'm confused. The record industry claims that every download is a lost sale and you guys froth and scream about how that's bullshit and bending the truth to make it sound worse than it is... but you claim that every sale is a lost download and that's OK, because it's the "good guys" making the claim.
Cut the double standards please. The claim that every download is a lost sale is a lie. The claim that everyone that downloads would never have paid were that the only way to get it is also a lie.
Actually, I'd place good bets the real reason they stripped that feature out of Absolute Manage is that now they can make you buy two solutions instead of one to achieve the same task! (Hint: Absolute also makes LoJack for Laptops, which does exactly what the removed feature in Absolute Manage did. Nothing to do with lawsuits).
Seriously, how the hell can they please you people? First, it was sell stuff on CD. You guys didn't like that - CDs are for dinosaurs, so they should sell them online. Then it was sell tracks individually online - no, because they were DRMed so screw that, make it DRM free then we'll talk. Then it was DRM free downloads - no, because they cost too much, make it cheap and then we'll talk. Now finally, it's $25 a year to download whatever you want and have it swapped out for legitimate high quality DRM free copies - you don't like that either, because that's a protection racket and they should be sued into oblivion.
One would think you'd be encouraging steps like this. Technically, if it works as advertised they've given you free reign to download whatever you want and for $25/year you get legit copies of whatever you download! And since they can't actually sue you for downloading, only uploading, this is a pirate's wet dream! Seriously, the only thing that you leeches will accept is free downloads of everything in lossless FLAC and a personalised apology for perceived injustices from the chairmen of each and every record company, isn't it?
Agreed. Xcode is hands down even worse than Eclipse for pure unintuitiveness. I couldn't even find half the features of Xcode 3, and Xcode 4 takes it one step further - so much so that I had to Google search to find out how to rename a compile target. And it still took three hours. I mean, it's a really good IDE - but it has a hell of a learning curve.
Oh, and the debug inspectors suck major ass. I mean, it can't even give me the contents of a fucking string (er, sorry, "NSString").
It's hard to feel very sorry for Sony - and to even feel their opponents are doing something so very much worse than what Sony did itself.
If your information was among that taken, I'm damn sure that you would be seeing it in a different light. But hey, it doesn't affect you so it's OK right? Douche.
Finally I take strong exception to (what appears ot be) a generalization of WikiLeaks and Anonymous. They are fighting for the true values of The Republic.
Wikileaks, I get. I mean, it should be a little more careful about ensuring that what gets leaked does not put others at risk, and frankly the irrational vendetta against the US gets old (hey, there's other countries too! And they have governments!) but all in all it does seem that properly run it can do good.
Anonymous though, how the bloody hell can you possibly call that fighting for any form of values? Unless the values you refer to are greed, rage, and just downright assholery. So far, in their fight against the "Enemies of Wikileaks", they've taken down the websites of the two major payment card processors (no effect), taken down PayPal (resulting in disruption of a portion of global commerce for everyone), failed to take down Amazon (resulting in much laughing and finger pointing). Then, in the fight against "Enemies of George Hotz", they've knocked over a gaming network that doesn't cost anything to use (therefore not directly making any money, but in fact costing money...) and if rumour is to be believed, stole and sold/distributed personal information of millions of people. How is that righteous? Here's the answer: it's not. It's goddamn criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not second hand knowledge. I now use USBSwiper and have used it at a trade show on my laptop with a Verizon wireless connection. It worked perfectly. From an administrative perspective, I've never had a merchant credit card account that was so easy to use. From an economic perspective, PayPal charges a flat rate for all transactions - 2.9% of the sale plus .30 per transaction. There is a $30 monthly fee which can be turned off anytime if the merchant is closed for the season, on vacation, or any reason.
That's an entire 1% higher than my card processing, and my card processing doesn't have a monthly fee (it does have a minimum commission - which means if I don't run up $30 - $40 locally, but probably about $30 USD - worth of transaction fees, they charge the minimum anyway). PayPal definitely loses on the economy point there. I'm also protected from stolen cards because the processor uses 3DS authentication, meaning that the card issuer eats it if a transaction is charged back due to someone claiming it's a stolen card, not me. PayPal would just rip that transaction right back, leaving me out of pocket.
Most consumers understand that the merchant pays for the acceptance of credit cards; what they don't understand is that their affinity card or rewards card costs the merchant more per transaction than a standard credit card, or what is called a "qualified" card. All non-qualified cards are charged more. Want to take a guess how many cards are now deemed "qualified"? Out of every 100 cards swiped, maybe 10 to 15 are qualified, which means they are charged at the lowest discount rate. All others are non-qualified and cost the merchant more. Add on fees such as statement fee, "abuse of system" fees (it's real) and anything else the card processors can cook up and the real cost of card acceptance can be as high as 6% - 8% or more.
In this country, we also don't have any such thing as "Qualified Cards" - it's all the same discount rate (you can opt for unblended rate, which means you pay different amounts for Visa than for MasterCard, but the banks generally discourage that for smaller vendors). We also don't get any fees other than the declared fees (the monthly minimum charge, and the gateway transaction charges). So to me, a transaction is 2ish percent, and that's it.
That's how you get a registered trademark. You get an unregistered trademark by simply using it in commerce.
No, Apple outright stole "iPhone". They actually legitimately paid for "iOS" though.
IOS has an uppercase I. It's an acronym for "Internetwork Operating System".
No, they're told that they are not a good fit for the company and good luck with their job hunt.
And this is from a big box major chain, too.
I didn't say they used the same code, because I would not be able to provide evidence of that, not having access to either source code. What I was saying is that it is functionally identical (does the same thing), in response to node 3 claiming that it does something completely different.
They also check that it doesn't contain any porn, that it doesn't crash, that it does what it says, no violence unless it's declared, no bad language...
Actually, they pretty much check for whatever Apple check for, minus a few things.
This is Apple implementing a similar feature *in a completely different way*.
If by "different" you mean "absolutely identically", yes.
Lastly the offering from apple is not the same kind of wireless sync that the App author created, it Syncs not to a users computer, but to the cloud, along with allowing even iOS upgrades with wireless..
Incorrect. Apple is introducing wireless sync in that when your iPhone comes in range of the wireless network your PC running iTunes on it will automatically sync with it over WiFi, removing the need to connect to the PC with a USB cable. iCloud is something completely different again.
How is it an issue security wise? Or even configuration wise? The iPhone (and some Androids) support Exchange Web Services and Exchange ActiveSync right out of the box. All you need to be doing is sticking an Ex2007 Frontend server at the back of your DMZ, expose it over HTTPS to the internet, and you have yourself a fully iPhone and Android friendly Exchange implementation, with push email, calendaring, and pretty much every feature except rich text emails ready to roll for any employee with an NT logon and a mailbox (with the "Mobile Client Access" permission enabled, of course). And if that wasn't enough for your security, attaching that iPhone or Android device to your Exchange server in such a way makes it subject to your Exchange server's security policies - such as password requirement on the device, remote wipe capability, and all that.
Not 100% true. In fact, we've got stores around here that during the interview process they give you a hypothetical set of requirements handed to you by a customer, and they ask you what you'd recommend. The interview ends right then and there if you say "the expensive one".
The real thing? What, a real phone? You'll need to be more specific... there's iPhones, Samsung Galaxy phones, a couple of rather nice Acer and Dell phones actually...
(For what it's worth, I once handed my iPhone 4 and my Huawei IDEOS - running Android 2.2 - to my mother, to see which she found easier. She actually considers the iPhone harder to use - and this is someone that only stopped asking for directions to shut down the computer last year).
How is maths relevant here? You can't mathematically determine intent or any other kind of psychological premise.
Basically, what's ultra crazy is you. You demonstrate an astonishing ignorance of reality. For that matter, you demonstrate an absolutely astronomical ignorance of mathematics if you believe you can mathematically determine whether a person would do without or purchase a product if the piracy option were not available. Even statistics (which is hardly "simply mathematics") gets hazy when one of the factors is "human choice".
You can't speak for anyone other than yourself. Not even "the overwhelming majority".
For you to claim that you can say with a straight face "the overwhelming majority of people who pirate something would not have paid for it anyway" means that the record companies are allowed to use the same bald faced lie to support their own viewpoint, because you've shown that basically, it's OK to lie about your position, and that their opponents in the battle have the same complete lack of respect for the public as they do, and that their opponents (again, that's you guys) have the same complete lack of moral fibre.
For the last time. It. Doesn't. Matter.
The people who would get the files via P2P were never your customers. You weren't selling anything to them before, you're selling exactly the same amount of nothing to them now. It's costing you nothing to sell this nothing. You lose nothing.
I'm confused. The record industry claims that every download is a lost sale and you guys froth and scream about how that's bullshit and bending the truth to make it sound worse than it is... but you claim that every sale is a lost download and that's OK, because it's the "good guys" making the claim.
Cut the double standards please. The claim that every download is a lost sale is a lie. The claim that everyone that downloads would never have paid were that the only way to get it is also a lie.
Actually, I'd place good bets the real reason they stripped that feature out of Absolute Manage is that now they can make you buy two solutions instead of one to achieve the same task! (Hint: Absolute also makes LoJack for Laptops, which does exactly what the removed feature in Absolute Manage did. Nothing to do with lawsuits).
Unless the carrier disables installation of non-market apps.
You don't need the code, just an unsigned binary blob which you can run codesign on.
Hey, they only just jumped on the Family Pack bandwagon... give it time!
Seriously, how the hell can they please you people? First, it was sell stuff on CD. You guys didn't like that - CDs are for dinosaurs, so they should sell them online. Then it was sell tracks individually online - no, because they were DRMed so screw that, make it DRM free then we'll talk. Then it was DRM free downloads - no, because they cost too much, make it cheap and then we'll talk. Now finally, it's $25 a year to download whatever you want and have it swapped out for legitimate high quality DRM free copies - you don't like that either, because that's a protection racket and they should be sued into oblivion.
One would think you'd be encouraging steps like this. Technically, if it works as advertised they've given you free reign to download whatever you want and for $25/year you get legit copies of whatever you download! And since they can't actually sue you for downloading, only uploading, this is a pirate's wet dream! Seriously, the only thing that you leeches will accept is free downloads of everything in lossless FLAC and a personalised apology for perceived injustices from the chairmen of each and every record company, isn't it?
Agreed. Xcode is hands down even worse than Eclipse for pure unintuitiveness. I couldn't even find half the features of Xcode 3, and Xcode 4 takes it one step further - so much so that I had to Google search to find out how to rename a compile target. And it still took three hours. I mean, it's a really good IDE - but it has a hell of a learning curve.
Oh, and the debug inspectors suck major ass. I mean, it can't even give me the contents of a fucking string (er, sorry, "NSString").
And considering the whole thing is likely to run on WebObjects like iTunes does, it's highly likely running a derivative of OS X.
Actually, it sounds to me like it should be followed by "and these, are their stories. DUM DUM".
It's hard to feel very sorry for Sony - and to even feel their opponents are doing something so very much worse than what Sony did itself.
If your information was among that taken, I'm damn sure that you would be seeing it in a different light. But hey, it doesn't affect you so it's OK right? Douche.
Finally I take strong exception to (what appears ot be) a generalization of WikiLeaks and Anonymous. They are fighting for the true values of The Republic.
Wikileaks, I get. I mean, it should be a little more careful about ensuring that what gets leaked does not put others at risk, and frankly the irrational vendetta against the US gets old (hey, there's other countries too! And they have governments!) but all in all it does seem that properly run it can do good.
Anonymous though, how the bloody hell can you possibly call that fighting for any form of values? Unless the values you refer to are greed, rage, and just downright assholery. So far, in their fight against the "Enemies of Wikileaks", they've taken down the websites of the two major payment card processors (no effect), taken down PayPal (resulting in disruption of a portion of global commerce for everyone), failed to take down Amazon (resulting in much laughing and finger pointing). Then, in the fight against "Enemies of George Hotz", they've knocked over a gaming network that doesn't cost anything to use (therefore not directly making any money, but in fact costing money...) and if rumour is to be believed, stole and sold/distributed personal information of millions of people. How is that righteous? Here's the answer: it's not. It's goddamn criminal.
Based on real Japanese history dontchaknow.