Easy enough to do. Comodo or GlobalSign will actually sell you an intermediate CA certificate issued by their trusted Root CA. Refer to GlobalTrust's page on that for evidence. Comodo has no info on the fact they allow this, but I have seen a Comodo chained CA in the wild.
Simple, you get error messages on every single SSL webpage because you don't have their certificate installed.
Alternatively, you check the SSL chain on your certificate. Proper certificates should not have an unidentifiable intermediate CA (Comodo or GeoTrust will actually sell you a CA certificate for enough money, with the authority to issue end-user certificates and fully backed by their trusted Root CA certificate).
In criminal cases, it has no choice - they're not issued by lawyers anyway, they're issued by district judges.
And frankly, if they're investigating a murder or other such criminal behaviour I would expect even Slashdot to assist law enforcement with properly formed discovery requests.
No, it really isn't. Your TV is an asset, but does it generate a return? No. Your savings are an asset (401k, retirement, whatever you call it) which do generate a return, but is it more than 5%? Probably not. Your car is an asset, but does it generate a return? No. In fact it generates a net loss through consumable requirements (petrol, oil, etc).
The reality is, almost all personal assets generate no or negative return, and the remaining assets would be taxed into negative return. The only class this would affect is corporations, who generally tie up virtually all their cash in assets, so would likely all end up being taxed into obliteration.
That's what's wrong with flat assets taxes - everything. Capital Gains Taxes make sense. As do Property Taxes. Even Investment Taxes. But flat Asset Taxes? Not bloody likely.
It's more complex than that. The slightest deviation may be enough to trigger the watchful eye of an actual human, and the statistical possibility of someone having the exact same pattern as you is close to zero. Even something as odd as the person buying a game at 3:15pm when the bank usually sees a purchase at the local coffee shop at 3:15pm would likely be enough to raise an orange flag.
Suffice it to say that banks are a bit (nay, a lot) smarter than that. They'll never tell you how their fraud detection systems work, but it can be safely said that they use more factors than just IP address and merchant.
Except that the string cannot validate if it was used to sign up for Live - the Xbox 360 will not accept a Discover card because Microsoft does not accept them. This doesn't discount the possibility that the card was there because the former owner signed up to Final Fantasy or another MMO via the console and that application saved or cached the number, but it certainly reinforces that it's unlikely Microsoft is responsible.
Yes. The first six numbers of the card match up to a database of who issued it and what type of card it is - the researchers would have run it through whatever BIN database they have access to.
I'm not sure what you mean by Bank of America's parent company though, as they don't have a parent company. And Visa and MasterCard don't have owners, they're associations formed of large issuing banks.
One of the best analyses I've seen of this issue, that debunks it completely, is that the card number that the researcher found was a Bank of America Discover card which is impossible - as Microsoft doesn't take Discover.
It could, however, just as easily have been someone who subscribed to Final Fantasy or a similar MMO, as the card details are entered via the Xbox too and not billed by Microsoft or in Microsoft's control at all.
If the Xbox is part of the payment system, then yes it would. Every application and all components that have access to the card data that processes payments are audited either as part of the PCI-DSS requirements or the PA-DSS requrements. For the Microsoft billing application to pass PCI-DSS, the Xbox which is software they control which has access to the card data as part of the transaction would have to be audited too.
And what the hell does the FTC have to do with anything? It's the merchant acquirer that demands audits, and cuts off merchants that do not comply or fail audit criteria.
EA's not just a publisher - they own BioWare 100%. Still, I'm fairly sure that they have little to do with the decision to add this particular content.
If it helps you any, think of the LGBT supporting part as BioWare, and the piece of shit as EA. Need it be pointed out that all the same sex stuff occurs in BioWare games (and I think they even did it pre-EA buyout), whereas you sure as heck don't see it in Need for Speed, Battlefield (where it would actually be kind of controversial and relevant), Command and Conquer, or Dante's Inferno.
I'm confused. They developed a technology, yet somehow developing technology is stifling innovation? Of course they didn't make devices, that isn't their job - they're a research institution, and the patent system was designed to encourage research and development. This isn't a misuse of the patent system, it's exactly how it's meant to be used.
The problem is that if they don't enforce it on highly visible cases like the core research underpinning WiFi as it is today, companies could see them as being lax at enforcing their commercial rights and more companies will simply choose to license their tech and not pay. I can't see how letting anyone off the hook could be beneficial to them.
The American government does the same thing as CSIRO is doing here - except that they skip a step and often just give the patent to some company from the outset. I can assure you that virtually none of the partially government funded research from the United States was implemented in whatever it is you have without cost to you.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with research institutions across the ditch charging for their research to recoup costs, so Australian taxpayers aren't footing the bill for foreign corporations to get stuff for free. (And we split the atom, so there).
Bullshit. The patents MOSAID holds are ones they got from Agere Systems, not CSIRO. The fact that CSIRO is the one doing the suing in this case kind of gives it away that they didn't sell them. Obviously.
And the IEEE disagrees that what they did was not inventive, when they asked for a licensing agreement for the CSIRO patents. Which were developed with taxpayer money. I'm pretty sure you'd be very pissed off if your government did some research on your dime then gave it away for free to everyone else in the world. I'm sure you'd be asking what your government is doing spending your money to help overseas companies.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't work because Slashdot forces non-subscribers back to HTTP.
Easy enough to do. Comodo or GlobalSign will actually sell you an intermediate CA certificate issued by their trusted Root CA. Refer to GlobalTrust's page on that for evidence. Comodo has no info on the fact they allow this, but I have seen a Comodo chained CA in the wild.
That's intentional. Slashdot restricts browsing over SSL to subscribers only.
Simple, you get error messages on every single SSL webpage because you don't have their certificate installed.
Alternatively, you check the SSL chain on your certificate. Proper certificates should not have an unidentifiable intermediate CA (Comodo or GeoTrust will actually sell you a CA certificate for enough money, with the authority to issue end-user certificates and fully backed by their trusted Root CA certificate).
In criminal cases, it has no choice - they're not issued by lawyers anyway, they're issued by district judges.
And frankly, if they're investigating a murder or other such criminal behaviour I would expect even Slashdot to assist law enforcement with properly formed discovery requests.
Anti-establishment nutbag.
No, it really isn't. Your TV is an asset, but does it generate a return? No. Your savings are an asset (401k, retirement, whatever you call it) which do generate a return, but is it more than 5%? Probably not. Your car is an asset, but does it generate a return? No. In fact it generates a net loss through consumable requirements (petrol, oil, etc).
The reality is, almost all personal assets generate no or negative return, and the remaining assets would be taxed into negative return. The only class this would affect is corporations, who generally tie up virtually all their cash in assets, so would likely all end up being taxed into obliteration.
That's what's wrong with flat assets taxes - everything. Capital Gains Taxes make sense. As do Property Taxes. Even Investment Taxes. But flat Asset Taxes? Not bloody likely.
It's more complex than that. The slightest deviation may be enough to trigger the watchful eye of an actual human, and the statistical possibility of someone having the exact same pattern as you is close to zero. Even something as odd as the person buying a game at 3:15pm when the bank usually sees a purchase at the local coffee shop at 3:15pm would likely be enough to raise an orange flag.
Because as an advertising agency it's their job? Simple, really.
Suffice it to say that banks are a bit (nay, a lot) smarter than that. They'll never tell you how their fraud detection systems work, but it can be safely said that they use more factors than just IP address and merchant.
Except they have a point. The card number found was a Discover. Microsoft won't even let you enter a Discover to sign up for Live or buy points.
Except that the string cannot validate if it was used to sign up for Live - the Xbox 360 will not accept a Discover card because Microsoft does not accept them. This doesn't discount the possibility that the card was there because the former owner signed up to Final Fantasy or another MMO via the console and that application saved or cached the number, but it certainly reinforces that it's unlikely Microsoft is responsible.
Yes. The first six numbers of the card match up to a database of who issued it and what type of card it is - the researchers would have run it through whatever BIN database they have access to.
I'm not sure what you mean by Bank of America's parent company though, as they don't have a parent company. And Visa and MasterCard don't have owners, they're associations formed of large issuing banks.
One of the best analyses I've seen of this issue, that debunks it completely, is that the card number that the researcher found was a Bank of America Discover card which is impossible - as Microsoft doesn't take Discover.
It could, however, just as easily have been someone who subscribed to Final Fantasy or a similar MMO, as the card details are entered via the Xbox too and not billed by Microsoft or in Microsoft's control at all.
If the Xbox is part of the payment system, then yes it would. Every application and all components that have access to the card data that processes payments are audited either as part of the PCI-DSS requirements or the PA-DSS requrements. For the Microsoft billing application to pass PCI-DSS, the Xbox which is software they control which has access to the card data as part of the transaction would have to be audited too.
And what the hell does the FTC have to do with anything? It's the merchant acquirer that demands audits, and cuts off merchants that do not comply or fail audit criteria.
Why? They're in Australia - not my problem.
Actually, with BioWare games they tend to implement both situations - man on man and woman on woman.
EA's not just a publisher - they own BioWare 100%. Still, I'm fairly sure that they have little to do with the decision to add this particular content.
If it helps you any, think of the LGBT supporting part as BioWare, and the piece of shit as EA. Need it be pointed out that all the same sex stuff occurs in BioWare games (and I think they even did it pre-EA buyout), whereas you sure as heck don't see it in Need for Speed, Battlefield (where it would actually be kind of controversial and relevant), Command and Conquer, or Dante's Inferno.
The irony is that by stating this, you are forcing your sexual preference on others. Are you as shocked by your behaviour as EA's, you hypocrite?
I'm confused. They developed a technology, yet somehow developing technology is stifling innovation? Of course they didn't make devices, that isn't their job - they're a research institution, and the patent system was designed to encourage research and development. This isn't a misuse of the patent system, it's exactly how it's meant to be used.
The problem is that if they don't enforce it on highly visible cases like the core research underpinning WiFi as it is today, companies could see them as being lax at enforcing their commercial rights and more companies will simply choose to license their tech and not pay. I can't see how letting anyone off the hook could be beneficial to them.
The American government does the same thing as CSIRO is doing here - except that they skip a step and often just give the patent to some company from the outset. I can assure you that virtually none of the partially government funded research from the United States was implemented in whatever it is you have without cost to you.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with research institutions across the ditch charging for their research to recoup costs, so Australian taxpayers aren't footing the bill for foreign corporations to get stuff for free. (And we split the atom, so there).
Bullshit. The patents MOSAID holds are ones they got from Agere Systems, not CSIRO. The fact that CSIRO is the one doing the suing in this case kind of gives it away that they didn't sell them. Obviously.
And the IEEE disagrees that what they did was not inventive, when they asked for a licensing agreement for the CSIRO patents. Which were developed with taxpayer money. I'm pretty sure you'd be very pissed off if your government did some research on your dime then gave it away for free to everyone else in the world. I'm sure you'd be asking what your government is doing spending your money to help overseas companies.
Yes, and that someone else would have patented it and had the same problem collecting royalties, and we'd be right back where we are now.
Actually, yes, Google often does. They won't remove links that go to sites that don't contain the artist's materials.