Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.
The CIA has been using British intelligence to spy on US citizens since they were first banned from spying on citizens in 1976.
When banks started to issue VISA/MasterCard credit cards in my country (one of the ex-commie countries) some 15 years ago...
Basically, if someone swiped your card, you were screwed - hopefully you had a sufficiently low withdrawal/payment limit on the card, otherwise your account could have been completely emptied.
Not defending CurrentC here (can be pretty much even worse), but the illusion that a credit card is somehow more secure is really that - an illusion
Maybe in your country credit card security is an illusion, but in the United States (where this battle is currently set to take place), it is not. If I use my ATM card at a store and my account gets stolen, I'm screwed. The bank does not have to give me back my money until after it concludes its investigation. With a credit card, the bank has to credit my account the disputed amount. All of the consumer protections are geared towards credit cards. CurrentC wants you to use your bank account in an EFT so that the retailers do not have to pay the credit card transaction fees. CurrentC provides zero advantage to consumers, and nothing but disadvantages over CC and Apple Pay. CurrentC will lose because it only benefits retailers. Unless they completely stop accepting credit card, no one will bother with CurrentC. And if they stopped accepting cards, then Amazon would be quite happy to take even more market share from brick and mortar retailers.
Keep your VIN number covered up.
Obstructing VIN = Violation of the law, possible Ticket.
Sufficient probable cause for police to force entry into the vehicle to investigate.
That explains something. I am in the UK and have an American car. The VIN is visible in the windscreen, the first car I have ever known like that, and it puzzled me why. I thought perhaps to save opening the bonnet (sorry, hood) to quote it when ordering spare parts?
I know of no jurisdiction in the US that requires you to physically change license plates every year. In Florida, the license plate is owned by a person and can be registered with another car when the plate owner sells or transfers a car. In California, the plate is tied to the car and they will not issue you a new plate unless you buy a car that has been taken by lien, drug forfeiture, etc. We just have stickers that you put on the plate to show you've paid the fees for the year.
Perhaps because, in the USA, don't you physically change the licence plate every year? In the UK the licence plate is permanent and is all that the police nornally need to know. You could physically and illegally change the number plate for a false one, but so you could change my VIN in the windscreen - only looks like a strip of metal stamped with the characters.
Waiting 15 years is a better deal than everybody else gets. Everybody else gets to wait indefinitely; most have to realize a loss before it can be claimed. In other words, if you overpay for an asset you don't get to claim a loss until you sell that asset to somebody else.
No. He already paid for the team. So he has already realized the loss. The question is whether its a short term loss, or not. Either way, if you or I were to purchase a home and then sell it for a loss, we could choose to do the exact same thing: amortize the lost money over the course of many years. As a homeowner you're given the option of realizing the loss in a single tax year, an option he did not have with this loss. The only difference between this and a homeowner who loses money is the scale. The fact that most homeowners cannot afford to lose that kind of money is a separate issue having to do with wealth distribution.
"Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable" - bzzzt! This implies that they display the discomfort instead of internalizing, brooding and acting on it later. The dongle incident is a good example of your statement not working.
The victim in the dongle incident was unusually sensitive. That is why a key element in such cases is that the personal has to externalize their discomfort and tell the perpetrator that they are uncomfortable in the situation. If someone is unusually sensitive then the onus is on them to let people know. If you're doing or saying something that is questionable, it should be obvious, based on the person's reaction, whether you should stop.
So the GP missed the key point there, which is that it has to be both unwelcome and troublesome. No, you missed the point that the "victim" defines both of those conditions subjectively.
In any reasonable jurisdiction, harassment IS subjective to the receiver of the attention, but they must notify the culprit that they do not appreciate their attention. Any reasonable person should be able to tell when someone is uncomfortable with their behavior, and modify their behavior towards that person accordingly. Where it becomes tricky is when the harasser is in a position of authority. A subordinate may not feel like they can say no. In that case, it is up to others to determine whether or not it was reasonable for the harasser to know that their behavior was unappreciated.
If one tells it like it is puffery is fraud just as a salesman's soap is fraud. If a product is desireable enough no sales efforts are required. The reason that we have marketing and sales is that most products really are not desireable at all.
How do I know what a product does without sales or marketing? Someone has to know about it in order for word of mouth to take effect. And what is word of mouth but a viral marketing campaign? I agree that most products are average or mediocre, but to say that sales and marketing is completely useless on a desirable product is naivety at its finest.
Isn't galosh a shoe? I think you meant goulash...but not entirely sure...
I think he meant gulag. The AC has no retirement plan, and so was planning to retire to "Club Fed" so to speak.
Anything computerized with a network connection can (and most likely WILL) be hacked...
Not if you take appropriate precautions, like using a safe programming language.
Last I checked, programming languages are designed and implemented by human beings. Even if a programming language can decrease your attack surface, there could still be an exploit associated with the interpreter/compiler or a mistake in implementation of the language. When an omniscient being develops your language and its corresponding dev tools, I would say you may have a meaningful point.
I would argue that women are genetically predisposed to perform some tasks better than men, while the same is true for men as well. I know none of my girlfriends ever got me pregnant, or even given me a pregnancy scare!
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
