That's assuming that the machines don't work by temporarily establishing an ad-hoc wifi connection to the device that is attempting to purchase something from them, which is something that I actually suspect they may do since the app on the phone is actually very quick to notice when the machine doesn't want to play ball (plus it saves on data costs for the machine vendor. Win/win). In which case Coca-Cola's machine (or in Australia/NZ, CC Amatil's machine) actually isn't in control of the network, and there is the very real risk of potential collision.
Unless you're in Australia or New Zealand. I swear, our machines intentionally give you as many coins as possible in change (they'll give you dollars worth of 10c coins just to screw with you).
Unless Jeffery is a transgender, that doesn't really serve as a valid counterpoint to "guess how many females you will find in the group fighting for fathers' rights".
Just look at Amazon. "Sure, we'll collect all locality taxes at the point of purchase. Oh and good luck pulling that off, Joe's Independent Online Bookshop!"
The exploit according to Gibson is that Snapchat doesn't rate limit calls to "find_friends" to prevent massive automated brute force queries to get user details. In all fairness, considering the massive processing power behind Snapchat and the fact that your server is more likely to deplete its available resources before theirs (they're on Google App Engine apparently), there really should be rate limiting, even 1 request per second would make automated hammering non-viable.
Unless you renounce your US citizenship, that is precisely what you're expected to do. The US is the only country on earth that taxes its citizens based on their Worldwide Income regardless of their tax residency. Unless there's a double taxation agreement, then it's just frigging convoluted.
You know, you are probably also a Microsoft shareholder. I'd say practically every retirement/pension fund on earth has Microsoft shares in their portfolio, since they have decent dividends and almost never devalue.
You do realise that if the entire contract is null and void, then you also void the part of the contract that says "Subject to the terms of this end user license agreement, licensor grants you a nonexclusive right to..." which under copyright law means you have no rights to the work at all, right?
That doesn't make the EULA non-binding at all, it makes specific clauses of it non-binding. And considering the final clause is always "if any part of this agreement is held to be unenforceable the remaining parts will continue in force" it just means that the illegal bits are ignored.
It's basically your fast track through customs. Why it can't be added as an endorsement on your passport is a mystery, but... US. So I guess it makes sense when you put it that way.
Yup. I was only addressing the statement that "contracts can't make any arbitrary thing binding" which is a bit less cut and dried when neither party to the contract is a consumer.
True, but as a general rule you'll find that while there are certain rights that consumers cannot sign away in a contract, the same protections do not apply to B2B contracts.
Here in NZ we had a phone company do it. They didn't like the attitude a guy gave them calling the customer service number, so they tacked a miscellaneous "Penalty for being an arrogant bastard".
Slashdot Mirror
That's assuming that the machines don't work by temporarily establishing an ad-hoc wifi connection to the device that is attempting to purchase something from them, which is something that I actually suspect they may do since the app on the phone is actually very quick to notice when the machine doesn't want to play ball (plus it saves on data costs for the machine vendor. Win/win). In which case Coca-Cola's machine (or in Australia/NZ, CC Amatil's machine) actually isn't in control of the network, and there is the very real risk of potential collision.
Australians don't drink Foster's.
Unless you're in Australia or New Zealand. I swear, our machines intentionally give you as many coins as possible in change (they'll give you dollars worth of 10c coins just to screw with you).
Unless Jeffery is a transgender, that doesn't really serve as a valid counterpoint to "guess how many females you will find in the group fighting for fathers' rights".
Just look at Amazon. "Sure, we'll collect all locality taxes at the point of purchase. Oh and good luck pulling that off, Joe's Independent Online Bookshop!"
It also wont run with elevated privileges unless the specified executable is a setup program, and the user agrees to the UAC prompt.
So... noone? Well that clears that up.
-18 to -16 is not a drop.
The exploit according to Gibson is that Snapchat doesn't rate limit calls to "find_friends" to prevent massive automated brute force queries to get user details. In all fairness, considering the massive processing power behind Snapchat and the fact that your server is more likely to deplete its available resources before theirs (they're on Google App Engine apparently), there really should be rate limiting, even 1 request per second would make automated hammering non-viable.
... in the same way as reading the entire phone book to see which numbers belong to people is a "vulnerability" in the telco industry.
Unless you renounce your US citizenship, that is precisely what you're expected to do. The US is the only country on earth that taxes its citizens based on their Worldwide Income regardless of their tax residency. Unless there's a double taxation agreement, then it's just frigging convoluted.
Too easy to replace the service - doing that would obliterate the user base in days.
I dunno about you, but most people would be pretty terrified of a package from Snapchat containing all their snaps for the month.
Hell, maybe it would be "for only $9.99 per month, we won't send you glossy photo prints of all the snapchats you sent this month. Lose every moment!"
Especially since it's the script for their web analytics platform. Which admittedly is Piwik, but it's still analytics which is literally snooping.
You know, you are probably also a Microsoft shareholder. I'd say practically every retirement/pension fund on earth has Microsoft shares in their portfolio, since they have decent dividends and almost never devalue.
So what does this mean for your original point?
You do realise that if the entire contract is null and void, then you also void the part of the contract that says "Subject to the terms of this end user license agreement, licensor grants you a nonexclusive right to..." which under copyright law means you have no rights to the work at all, right?
That doesn't make the EULA non-binding at all, it makes specific clauses of it non-binding. And considering the final clause is always "if any part of this agreement is held to be unenforceable the remaining parts will continue in force" it just means that the illegal bits are ignored.
It's basically your fast track through customs. Why it can't be added as an endorsement on your passport is a mystery, but... US. So I guess it makes sense when you put it that way.
Yup. I was only addressing the statement that "contracts can't make any arbitrary thing binding" which is a bit less cut and dried when neither party to the contract is a consumer.
Sovereign immunity. You'll probably find the government has not waived immunity for the actions of the patent office, so you could not sue it.
True, but as a general rule you'll find that while there are certain rights that consumers cannot sign away in a contract, the same protections do not apply to B2B contracts.
Sharepoint uses SQL Server as the backend, yes. Although it can use SQL Server Express as well (I wouldn't recommend it).
However, Exchange does not use SQL Server.
Here in NZ we had a phone company do it. They didn't like the attitude a guy gave them calling the customer service number, so they tacked a miscellaneous "Penalty for being an arrogant bastard".
Ouch, that payroll system sounds as disastrous as New Zealand's education payroll system Novopay. (Talent2. Even more incompetent than IBM!)
Or INCIS, the New Zealand police computer system (thanks IBM!)
Wait... why does everyone hire IBM again?
we want to do that...
oh wait no we don't... yes thats what centrelink etc are trying to do is catch fraud...
its not like they leave windows machines administrators full access to classified documents...
Er, that was Work and Income New Zealand, not Centrelink Australia.