Get your own laptop, you leeching bum.

...in the creation of transparent Aluminum....

Your idea will never catch on. ;-)

But seriously, one of the problems with your idea, and it has actually happened in real life, is that the users fail to authenticate the bank. So some of them end up sometimes submitting HTML forms to an imposter. When you and the bank meet each other and they're getting your public key, you should also be getting their public key.

Instead, we're using this ridiculous system where someone named verisign, whom we never met, is our introducer for a party we have already met (our bank). It's actually pretty crazy, insecure, and regressive tech, when you think about it.

How do you tell the bank your nameand DOB, and prove that the government has certified that someone whose face looks like yours, happens to be associated with that name and DOB?

That's funny, because the submitter claimed the bank had her "name, address, date of birth, social security number, drivers license number and bank account information." It's almost as though they might have met her (in some form), got a lot of information from her (you can ask for all that stuff but not a fingerprint?) and authenticated her. Typos aside, you have to authenticate anyway, otherwise I could take out a loan in the submitter's sister's name, and give them my email address which they correctly enter.

In a situation like that, where you're already authenticating, you don't even need an "infrastructure," or rather, you're building the infrastructure right there. After that meeting, the bank and the customer can sign each other and add the connection to the WoT so that the next person (who knows one of the parties but not the other) will have it.

Oh right, the WoT. So there is already an existing infrastructure but people just aren't using it so it's still missing a lot of people.

Uber is very scary. But defining a jurisdiction in the conditions is pretty common.

Maybe Uber simply put in the terms and conditions that US laws applies, place of jurisdiction is US, or something like this. Or the woman knows she has no standing and figures maybe they settle to avoid the bad press. Or whatever.

I just sensed come cultural superiority in that post, and wanted to add the info that the West was very bad in this regard until very recently as well for the benefit of my younger readers :)

I agree with your reply re the gender issues but would expect that the woman has legal standing in the US against Uber. Else she can't sue anyway

WTF, rape supporter?????

We need a +1 PWND moderation here.

Learn to read, moron.

Marital rape was made illegal by law in:

Australia: 1981-92
Canada: 1983
New Zealand: 1985
Austria: 1989
Switzerland: 1992
Spain: 1992
France: 1994
Germany: 1997
Netherlands: 1991
US: mid 70ies - 1993 but to this day in some states marital rape is treated more lenient.

So STFU

It was legal in most Western states until roughly the 1980ies/90ies.
The Soviet Union made it illegal in 1922.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?

Yes, and he just told you, but you weren't listening. Having a blood-bourne disease vector has the benefit of staying the wrathful hand of Gaea.

Are you trying to persuade us that this disease is somehow important enough to be a bad thing, or are you making your argument to a god?

If you're so intimately familiar with a values and agendas of the gods, then on humanity's behalf I request that you also please explain to Cthulhu that the stars aren't right.

There are so many layers of stupid in this story, it's hard to address one of them without the embarrassing feeling that someone might read a rebuke of one stupidity, and take it as an implicit acceptable of the rest of the stupidity that you didn't address. If you argue too hard that Yog-Sothoth made a mistake in designing camels, somebody might think you're a creationist.

From the point of view of a malevolent user who intends to use the device to harm someone, why would they want your malware?

From the point of view of a benevolent user, why would they want your malware?

What will happen in the marketplace, if a benevolent user is persuaded to run your malware and then has a problem and finds out that it was due to the malware?

What's so special about the security needs of people in a capital, compared to people everywhere else? And is this special need, really a function of where they happen to be at a moment, or is it based on what their powers and responsibilities (and presumably, replacement cost) are?

I am leaving a few dozen obvious things out because it's tiring to enumerate. That my original point: don't think that just because I missed a totally-obvious way that the idea is stupid, as meaning I would debate one of these points from the premise of accepting a lot of other stupidity. It's not even something I disagree with or think is a bad strategy or an us-vs-them thing. It's just a totally dumb idea, a loser no matter how you look at it and no matter what your agenda is.