Half of your examples are hardware upgrades, which are pretty obviously a bullshit analogy. The other was a completely new OS, when a closer analogy is Windows XP to Windows XP SP2 (which added about as many features as Leopard to Snow Leopard). Ever seen new features in a free Apple update? Me neither.
But I don't expect you to accept that, your nickname alone makes it quite clear you can justify their behaviour in the face of insurmountable evidence. So I won't bother.
What funding? Seriously, what funding? I've never heard of this funding, and if there is verifiable evidence that the US ever provided funding to NZ (not a loan, by the way, since it's actually quite common for countries to lend each other money, or it used to be) then I'd love to hear it.
(A quick check of the history says you're talking about "lend-lease", where equipment was loaned to allied countries with the offer to buy it at 90% discount once the lease ended with the war. Further checking also says that New Zealand aid to the United States actually outstripped the aid from the US to NZ over a 2 year period of the war, with another 2 year period where US aid to NZ outstripped the reverse and the rest of the war it being a complete wash. In other words, you're talking out your arse).
That's not even a tangentially related analogy. More like "Hello, I expect you to pay me $5 for walking through this alley, because I built it. That said, that guy over there is letting people walk through his alley for free."
The reason your mobile providers double dip in incoming and outgoing calls is because your crappy interconnect model that your providers are trying to foist on... er, New Zealand. It's called "Bill and Keep" where the originating network for the call gets to keep the entirety of the revenue from the call, despite the terminating carrier also incurring costs in delivering the call. In theory, that would be fine if the call volumes were pretty much level between the two carriers, but often they're not. In NZ, we have the CPP ("Calling Party Pays") model, where the person making the call pays for the call, and the originating mobile network has to pay a per-minute rate (called the "Mobile Termination Rate", or MTR) to the terminating network to cover their costs. The result is slightly higher costs to make calls, but no cost to receive them. The same principle applies to text messages, which is why I think it's cryptic that you guys are actually paying MORE than us to send SMS messages (20c US each, right? At both ends? In NZ it's 20c NZ to send, $0 to receive).
Labour-Green is nowhere near as disastrous as anything involving the disgustingly racist Maori Party. All about creating two sets of laws, one for the Maoris and one for everyone else. I pray noone is stupid enough to vote for Mana, with Mr Harawira (you know, the guy who referred to all Europeans as "land-stealing white mother-fuckers") in charge.
Not so. The law is also specifically written to hold the account holder of a connection (whether it be a company, household, public library, hospital, or even parliament itself) responsible for any infringing activity on that connection, whether it be because of a free public wifi, insecure hotspot, internet kiosk, trojan/rootkit, or even 11-year old nephews.
Don't perform $1 auths, Visa hates that. You can actually perform a $0 auth now, provided your processor supports it (AuthNet does) and this is how you're supposed to validate card numbers now.
Side note, if you use AuthNet the CIM service is as parent describes.
My payment gateway does exactly this - I simply cannot get the card number without asking the user, and if I want a recurring transaction, then I am given a token unique to my merchant identity which I, and only I, can use to charge that customer. Anyone else could use it to either refund or give more money to me. The gateway doesn't allow customers to cancel it though, as they are an actual merchant payment gateway, not like PayPal - they aren't set up to actually deal with customers.
I have no idea what undefined system that GP is talking about, but here in NZ we run a system in parallel with the Credit system called "EFTPOS", which is similar to a credit system in that you have a card, and you swipe it at a shop to make a payment, but that's where the similarity ends. Basically, it absolutely requires a PIN. Simply won't work without it. As well, the money is settled directly between your bank and their bank, and it actually transfers money (from your bank account, not some credit account). Think of it as a card assisted bank transfer. It seems to work well - basically the card has only the number on it, and when you make a transaction you enter the PIN number on the PIN-pad, which Triple-DES encrypts it and then sends it to the processing network (which validates it with your bank) via the terminal. Obviously, it's not 100% failsafe. With physical access, nothing is. But it's a hell of a lot more secure than 16 digits, a month and year, and an optional three digit code on the back (the CV2 code doesn't actually have to be submitted with a transaction, and it only has to be right if it is provided).
The bank isn't liable, the merchant is. The bank is only liable for Card Not Present transactions where 3DS authentication was attempted and either not supported or succeeded.
Many payment gateways offer just such this service. For example, if I as a merchant process a transaction through my merchant account, I don't actually get the card number. The customer enters their card number onto the payment gateway's processing page, and I am simply notified of the transaction outcome. However, if I indicate that I want recurring payments, then I am provided a token which I use in place of the card number (which I don't know) in order to re-charge that card. That token is unique to my merchant account, and no other merchant can use it. In the US, Authorize.net does this as well via the CIM product.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing requires merchants to get over not having control of the entire payment flow. Many for some reason can't.
I still cannot fathom how every company in the world is capable of giving you updates to a product you got from them for free without attracting SEC investigators and IRS auditors out the wazoo. Every company in the world, that is, except Apple. Unless... here's the most likely reason... the "SOX compliance" issue is a load of bullshit.
Just as a reminder, here's a nonexhaustive list of companies who can give you updates to products from them for free: Sony Microsoft Nintendo Dell HP Samsung HTC Google
And now here's an exhaustive list of companies that have to charge you "for SOX compliance reasons": Apple
Unless there's a section of SOX that starts off with "If you are Apple Incorporated..." then this excuse is crap.
And this doesn't include the price of phone service (a Windows Phone 7 device isn't sold as a PDA, unlike iPod touch and Archos 43, or even as a prepaid phone).
Microsoft sells phones without a service plan directly for just this reason.
The NeXTSTEP API was about running on NeXT. It was used to create the World Wide Web.
Pretty sure that POSIX was used to create the World Wide Web.
Today, Apple's WebKit browser engine, which is the most popular mobile open source project, brings the Web and the open HTML5 API to all mobiles except Microsoft's, plus to Chrome and AIR and various set-top boxes. So Apple is doing more for open application development than anyone else.
AVS is the system whereby the billing address on the credit card is validated against the user provided address to ensure that they are the same. Which is to say, if a merchant uses AVS validation, your fake address is going to result in your order being declined or marked as high risk/fraud - whether they're shipping shit to you or it's just a PSN purchase.
I'm pretty sure that Employment Agreements are real honest to god 3-4 page dead tree contracts that you have to physically put pen to, and that you actually are free to talk to someone if you're uncomfortable with the terms of. This is completely fucking different from a 100 page agreement that you scroll to the bottom of and tap "Accept" on, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and frankly bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Half of your examples are hardware upgrades, which are pretty obviously a bullshit analogy. The other was a completely new OS, when a closer analogy is Windows XP to Windows XP SP2 (which added about as many features as Leopard to Snow Leopard). Ever seen new features in a free Apple update? Me neither.
But I don't expect you to accept that, your nickname alone makes it quite clear you can justify their behaviour in the face of insurmountable evidence. So I won't bother.
What funding? Seriously, what funding? I've never heard of this funding, and if there is verifiable evidence that the US ever provided funding to NZ (not a loan, by the way, since it's actually quite common for countries to lend each other money, or it used to be) then I'd love to hear it.
(A quick check of the history says you're talking about "lend-lease", where equipment was loaned to allied countries with the offer to buy it at 90% discount once the lease ended with the war. Further checking also says that New Zealand aid to the United States actually outstripped the aid from the US to NZ over a 2 year period of the war, with another 2 year period where US aid to NZ outstripped the reverse and the rest of the war it being a complete wash. In other words, you're talking out your arse).
That's not even a tangentially related analogy. More like "Hello, I expect you to pay me $5 for walking through this alley, because I built it. That said, that guy over there is letting people walk through his alley for free."
The reason your mobile providers double dip in incoming and outgoing calls is because your crappy interconnect model that your providers are trying to foist on... er, New Zealand. It's called "Bill and Keep" where the originating network for the call gets to keep the entirety of the revenue from the call, despite the terminating carrier also incurring costs in delivering the call. In theory, that would be fine if the call volumes were pretty much level between the two carriers, but often they're not. In NZ, we have the CPP ("Calling Party Pays") model, where the person making the call pays for the call, and the originating mobile network has to pay a per-minute rate (called the "Mobile Termination Rate", or MTR) to the terminating network to cover their costs. The result is slightly higher costs to make calls, but no cost to receive them. The same principle applies to text messages, which is why I think it's cryptic that you guys are actually paying MORE than us to send SMS messages (20c US each, right? At both ends? In NZ it's 20c NZ to send, $0 to receive).
Labour-Green is nowhere near as disastrous as anything involving the disgustingly racist Maori Party. All about creating two sets of laws, one for the Maoris and one for everyone else. I pray noone is stupid enough to vote for Mana, with Mr Harawira (you know, the guy who referred to all Europeans as "land-stealing white mother-fuckers") in charge.
Actually, New Zealand has quite a significant lot of oil.
Not so. The law is also specifically written to hold the account holder of a connection (whether it be a company, household, public library, hospital, or even parliament itself) responsible for any infringing activity on that connection, whether it be because of a free public wifi, insecure hotspot, internet kiosk, trojan/rootkit, or even 11-year old nephews.
They can't hide the parent company profits from the SEC, their auditors, or (if they are public companies) the public.
It's easier than you think. Just bounce it via a foreign corporation, which does not have reporting requirements.
Don't perform $1 auths, Visa hates that. You can actually perform a $0 auth now, provided your processor supports it (AuthNet does) and this is how you're supposed to validate card numbers now.
Side note, if you use AuthNet the CIM service is as parent describes.
My payment gateway does exactly this - I simply cannot get the card number without asking the user, and if I want a recurring transaction, then I am given a token unique to my merchant identity which I, and only I, can use to charge that customer. Anyone else could use it to either refund or give more money to me. The gateway doesn't allow customers to cancel it though, as they are an actual merchant payment gateway, not like PayPal - they aren't set up to actually deal with customers.
I have no idea what undefined system that GP is talking about, but here in NZ we run a system in parallel with the Credit system called "EFTPOS", which is similar to a credit system in that you have a card, and you swipe it at a shop to make a payment, but that's where the similarity ends. Basically, it absolutely requires a PIN. Simply won't work without it. As well, the money is settled directly between your bank and their bank, and it actually transfers money (from your bank account, not some credit account). Think of it as a card assisted bank transfer. It seems to work well - basically the card has only the number on it, and when you make a transaction you enter the PIN number on the PIN-pad, which Triple-DES encrypts it and then sends it to the processing network (which validates it with your bank) via the terminal. Obviously, it's not 100% failsafe. With physical access, nothing is. But it's a hell of a lot more secure than 16 digits, a month and year, and an optional three digit code on the back (the CV2 code doesn't actually have to be submitted with a transaction, and it only has to be right if it is provided).
The bank isn't liable, the merchant is. The bank is only liable for Card Not Present transactions where 3DS authentication was attempted and either not supported or succeeded.
Many payment gateways offer just such this service. For example, if I as a merchant process a transaction through my merchant account, I don't actually get the card number. The customer enters their card number onto the payment gateway's processing page, and I am simply notified of the transaction outcome. However, if I indicate that I want recurring payments, then I am provided a token which I use in place of the card number (which I don't know) in order to re-charge that card. That token is unique to my merchant account, and no other merchant can use it. In the US, Authorize.net does this as well via the CIM product.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing requires merchants to get over not having control of the entire payment flow. Many for some reason can't.
That's all well and good, but with Symbian what are you developing for?
Perhaps that's why they joined up with Valve/Steam?
"Please assume the Party Escort Submission Position..."
I still cannot fathom how every company in the world is capable of giving you updates to a product you got from them for free without attracting SEC investigators and IRS auditors out the wazoo. Every company in the world, that is, except Apple. Unless... here's the most likely reason... the "SOX compliance" issue is a load of bullshit.
Just as a reminder, here's a nonexhaustive list of companies who can give you updates to products from them for free:
Sony
Microsoft
Nintendo
Dell
HP
Samsung
HTC
Google
And now here's an exhaustive list of companies that have to charge you "for SOX compliance reasons":
Apple
Unless there's a section of SOX that starts off with "If you are Apple Incorporated..." then this excuse is crap.
And this doesn't include the price of phone service (a Windows Phone 7 device isn't sold as a PDA, unlike iPod touch and Archos 43, or even as a prepaid phone).
Microsoft sells phones without a service plan directly for just this reason.
Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you're saying. Anyway, go here: http://www.zones.com/windowsphonedeveloperpurchase
The NeXTSTEP API was about running on NeXT. It was used to create the World Wide Web.
Pretty sure that POSIX was used to create the World Wide Web.
Today, Apple's WebKit browser engine, which is the most popular mobile open source project, brings the Web and the open HTML5 API to all mobiles except Microsoft's, plus to Chrome and AIR and various set-top boxes. So Apple is doing more for open application development than anyone else.
So your consternation is totally misplaced.
Apple's WebKit? I think you mean KDE's KHTML.
Nice history revision though.
It's. Digital. Data. You can't make it sound better by changing the composition of the cable.
I see they don't teach research in dumb school.
AVS is the system whereby the billing address on the credit card is validated against the user provided address to ensure that they are the same. Which is to say, if a merchant uses AVS validation, your fake address is going to result in your order being declined or marked as high risk/fraud - whether they're shipping shit to you or it's just a PSN purchase.
It's illegal to work without one, so, always.
I'm pretty sure that Employment Agreements are real honest to god 3-4 page dead tree contracts that you have to physically put pen to, and that you actually are free to talk to someone if you're uncomfortable with the terms of. This is completely fucking different from a 100 page agreement that you scroll to the bottom of and tap "Accept" on, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and frankly bullshit.
Unless the merchant has 3DS enabled. 3DS includes a liability shift back onto the issuing banks in cases of "Unauthorised Purchase" chargebacks.
The Airport Extreme requires you be in NAT mode to do it though, which causes issues if you're behind another NAT'ing PPPoA router.
Good luck getting past AVS with a fake address.