Check, um, how? There's no thing on the page which says "We use blah blah for transactions", the merchant is under no obligation to tell you and under no obligation to tell the truth if they do, and in some cases don't even know, and in a select few cases are contractually forbidden from telling you (mostly adult entertainment merchants, as the provider does not want to be associated with that activity). In some cases you may not even have a choice of alternative merchant (i.e. large monopoly parking garage owners).
That usually means the bank has placed a transaction block on that merchant - mine does the same with Entropay. It actually means it requires manual intervention to perform the transaction. In my case, I need a bank person on the phone to force the payment through.
It's OK. The US government is working to make sure that all countries are in the same shit position as they are in regards to healthcare costs by ways of the TPPA, which will outlaw negotiating for better drug prices at all, and essentially prevent governments from looking after their citizens at all if it gets in the way of drug company profiteering. Also, it allows drug companies to sue our governments for "not recognising the value of their patents"
I wasn't comparing file sharing with life or death situations - just saying that there's a flaw in generalising in the way you did which opens the possibility for someone to tear down your argument.
Just as a disclaimer, in the country I'm in, speeding is something prosecuted by the police not the local councils, and speed limits are largely uniformly set at 50km/h, 80km/h, and 100km/h for urban streets, minor highways, and motorways respectively. We also have a largely accepted 10km/h "margin of error" in which the police will not generally prosecute for unless you are near a school around start and finish times (where the margin of error becomes zero). It's a largely sane system, really.
It's an April Fools prank. If you check the DNS nameservers for the domain you can see that their name servers are still with their legitimate registrar, xname.org. If you do the same for megaupload.com, you can see that their nameservers were changed to "ns5.cirfu.net" (CIRFU standing for "Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit", an FBI division). You can even see the difference in the banner image between TechPowerUp and MegaUpload as well.
When a law makes the actions of the majority of the population criminal, then it's not the population that is the problem, it is the law itself.
Disagree completely. Almost every person speeds on the roads, and yet that continues to be illegal. That's not a problem with the law - speeding should be illegal, considering the high risk it places on other road users. But under your theory, speeding should be legal simply because lots of people do it. Well, no.
Cars / guns aren't really the best analogy.. It'd be more like a shipping service that ships 10% legal goods and 90% illegal goods. If they took action to cut out the illegal stuff there wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I think I prefer down under here (Australia/New Zealand) where the government does the rating instead. A hell of a lot more unbiased, and costs a lot less too (only $1000 one time fee to get a film rated, or $25 if you're an individual who wants something rated for personal use rather than for commercial sales).
There is no evidence of that. Naturally, the company itself states it is not but there is no way to confirm or deny it one way or the other. I agree with your basic point but you don't help your credibility by posting rumours as fact.
Not surprising, if the user had reversible encryption enabled or you have physical access and can overwrite the hashed password with an arbitrary value. Of course, if the user ticked the box "Encrypt contents to secure data", or enabled Bitlocker full disk encryption, your "boot-cd" would be completely useless.
That's because your clients are incompetent. All of them.
No company I've ever worked for has had an SQL server "corrupt" a database. Ever. The only thing even remotely similar was a disk failure, caused by shitty HP hardware, and recovered in an hour without even going to backups thanks to hotswapping disks in the RAID array.
That's a little pointless. If the merchant accepts a transaction where 3DS authentication failed, then they are back on the hook for the fraud. Only if 3DS is unsupported or succeeds does the merchant get liability shift (where the issuing bank takes the hit for fraud instead of the merchant).
Not entirely true. If Verified by Visa or Mastercard SecureCode is attempted, something called Liability Shift happens, where the liability you refer to is "shifted" off the merchant and placed squarely on the issuing bank. As a merchant, you're a moron if you aren't attempting 3DS on every transaction for that alone (so much so that my own provider makes 3DS mandatory on all transactions). Obviously, this only applies to card not present transactions.
Some countries are starting to wise up to that. Over here in NZ, our consumer protection agency (the Commerce Commission) overturned the clauses in the credit card merchant agreement preventing merchants from setting minimum transaction amounts or charging more to credit card customers. Signs saying "2.5% extra charge for credit cards" and "$30 minimum for Visa/Mastercard" are common, and becoming more common by the day.
Administrators don't tend to be government appointed in most cases.
Either way, it could get very confusing - in New Zealand, we have three stages of failure- Voluntary Administration, Receivership, and Liquidation. VA is where the company believes that it may be insolvent or insolvency is imminent, so appoints an administrator to take over operations and restructure in an effort to either return to solvency or begin the process of winding down in an orderly fashion. Receivership tends to be court appointed, and happens when the company doesn't see a way to return to solvency, so a receiver takes over operations with a view to maximising the return to creditors - sometimes by continuing to run the company until a buyer can be found, sometimes by selling it in bits and sometimes by... Liquidation. I think that's analogous to chapter 7, where basically the company is insolvent, and cannot return to solvency, so its assets are sold and the company dissolved to maximise the return to the creditors. Shareholders lose a lot during this process, as they aren't first class creditors.
Oh get over yourself. ASP.NET MVC is still very much alive, very much open source, and not "tied up in patents". Also, Microsoft owns Codeplex, and has very few projects on Sourceforge. Everything has to have an ulterior motive for you fucks doesn't it?
Well, actually, no the community typically isn't. It's the project maintainers that make the final call. Whether they also call for submissions on a mailing list is irrelevant - if for example Linus Torvalds didn't want a particular commit making it into Linux Kernel, it won't make it. The reality is, they're running ASP.NET MVC in virtually the same way as any open source project - no "key difference" at all.
It never ceases to annoy me that VB has a way of re-attempting a code path that caused an exception after resolving the exception cause but C# does not short of goto. In a catch block in VB, you can simply call "ReTry" and it will re-attempt from the line that failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Check, um, how? There's no thing on the page which says "We use blah blah for transactions", the merchant is under no obligation to tell you and under no obligation to tell the truth if they do, and in some cases don't even know, and in a select few cases are contractually forbidden from telling you (mostly adult entertainment merchants, as the provider does not want to be associated with that activity). In some cases you may not even have a choice of alternative merchant (i.e. large monopoly parking garage owners).
That usually means the bank has placed a transaction block on that merchant - mine does the same with Entropay. It actually means it requires manual intervention to perform the transaction. In my case, I need a bank person on the phone to force the payment through.
It's OK. The US government is working to make sure that all countries are in the same shit position as they are in regards to healthcare costs by ways of the TPPA, which will outlaw negotiating for better drug prices at all, and essentially prevent governments from looking after their citizens at all if it gets in the way of drug company profiteering. Also, it allows drug companies to sue our governments for "not recognising the value of their patents"
I wasn't comparing file sharing with life or death situations - just saying that there's a flaw in generalising in the way you did which opens the possibility for someone to tear down your argument.
Just as a disclaimer, in the country I'm in, speeding is something prosecuted by the police not the local councils, and speed limits are largely uniformly set at 50km/h, 80km/h, and 100km/h for urban streets, minor highways, and motorways respectively. We also have a largely accepted 10km/h "margin of error" in which the police will not generally prosecute for unless you are near a school around start and finish times (where the margin of error becomes zero). It's a largely sane system, really.
It's an April Fools prank. If you check the DNS nameservers for the domain you can see that their name servers are still with their legitimate registrar, xname.org. If you do the same for megaupload.com, you can see that their nameservers were changed to "ns5.cirfu.net" (CIRFU standing for "Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit", an FBI division). You can even see the difference in the banner image between TechPowerUp and MegaUpload as well.
And that means not even having a Paypal account. They'll grasp any tenuous jurisdiction they can.
When a law makes the actions of the majority of the population criminal, then it's not the population that is the problem, it is the law itself.
Disagree completely. Almost every person speeds on the roads, and yet that continues to be illegal. That's not a problem with the law - speeding should be illegal, considering the high risk it places on other road users. But under your theory, speeding should be legal simply because lots of people do it. Well, no.
Cars / guns aren't really the best analogy.. It'd be more like a shipping service that ships 10% legal goods and 90% illegal goods. If they took action to cut out the illegal stuff there wouldn't be a problem.
So, Western Union then?
Yeah, I think I prefer down under here (Australia/New Zealand) where the government does the rating instead. A hell of a lot more unbiased, and costs a lot less too (only $1000 one time fee to get a film rated, or $25 if you're an individual who wants something rated for personal use rather than for commercial sales).
All you just did is say the same thing as the GP said but in a different way.
2) Huawei is a government controlled corporation.
There is no evidence of that. Naturally, the company itself states it is not but there is no way to confirm or deny it one way or the other. I agree with your basic point but you don't help your credibility by posting rumours as fact.
Not surprising, if the user had reversible encryption enabled or you have physical access and can overwrite the hashed password with an arbitrary value. Of course, if the user ticked the box "Encrypt contents to secure data", or enabled Bitlocker full disk encryption, your "boot-cd" would be completely useless.
That's because your clients are incompetent. All of them.
No company I've ever worked for has had an SQL server "corrupt" a database. Ever. The only thing even remotely similar was a disk failure, caused by shitty HP hardware, and recovered in an hour without even going to backups thanks to hotswapping disks in the RAID array.
That's a little pointless. If the merchant accepts a transaction where 3DS authentication failed, then they are back on the hook for the fraud. Only if 3DS is unsupported or succeeds does the merchant get liability shift (where the issuing bank takes the hit for fraud instead of the merchant).
In which case the merchant is required to refuse to accept the card until the customer signs it.
Not entirely true. If Verified by Visa or Mastercard SecureCode is attempted, something called Liability Shift happens, where the liability you refer to is "shifted" off the merchant and placed squarely on the issuing bank. As a merchant, you're a moron if you aren't attempting 3DS on every transaction for that alone (so much so that my own provider makes 3DS mandatory on all transactions). Obviously, this only applies to card not present transactions.
Some countries are starting to wise up to that. Over here in NZ, our consumer protection agency (the Commerce Commission) overturned the clauses in the credit card merchant agreement preventing merchants from setting minimum transaction amounts or charging more to credit card customers. Signs saying "2.5% extra charge for credit cards" and "$30 minimum for Visa/Mastercard" are common, and becoming more common by the day.
Click on the name and you get their street number as well, sometimes. That's what he meant by "most of the time".
But yes, us civilized (tongue in cheek) countries have way better white pages.
No, OAuth is right. That's what Facebook uses. Google can use it or OpenID, but most use OAuth.
Plus they'll likely tick the box that asks permission to post to your facebook wall too.
Administrators don't tend to be government appointed in most cases.
Either way, it could get very confusing - in New Zealand, we have three stages of failure- Voluntary Administration, Receivership, and Liquidation. VA is where the company believes that it may be insolvent or insolvency is imminent, so appoints an administrator to take over operations and restructure in an effort to either return to solvency or begin the process of winding down in an orderly fashion. Receivership tends to be court appointed, and happens when the company doesn't see a way to return to solvency, so a receiver takes over operations with a view to maximising the return to creditors - sometimes by continuing to run the company until a buyer can be found, sometimes by selling it in bits and sometimes by... Liquidation. I think that's analogous to chapter 7, where basically the company is insolvent, and cannot return to solvency, so its assets are sold and the company dissolved to maximise the return to the creditors. Shareholders lose a lot during this process, as they aren't first class creditors.
Oh get over yourself. ASP.NET MVC is still very much alive, very much open source, and not "tied up in patents". Also, Microsoft owns Codeplex, and has very few projects on Sourceforge. Everything has to have an ulterior motive for you fucks doesn't it?
Well, actually, no the community typically isn't. It's the project maintainers that make the final call. Whether they also call for submissions on a mailing list is irrelevant - if for example Linus Torvalds didn't want a particular commit making it into Linux Kernel, it won't make it. The reality is, they're running ASP.NET MVC in virtually the same way as any open source project - no "key difference" at all.
It never ceases to annoy me that VB has a way of re-attempting a code path that caused an exception after resolving the exception cause but C# does not short of goto. In a catch block in VB, you can simply call "ReTry" and it will re-attempt from the line that failed.
So there's even areas where C# is beaten by VB.
There are lots of people already doing it, including some mega-corporates such as Netflix.