I think you misread that.
First, during the trial period, it's free. There is no comment as to how much it will cost after June 2014. Second, it's $9 per hour. So $18 to watch, say, a two hour movie. A bit pricey, methinks.
Sounds good to me. It just means that the only people who use it will be business travelers whose companies are paying. I'll actually be able to get some work done.
What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?
They got you to comment, didn't they? Nobody with half a brain would waste their time typing anyth...
I thought the identifier was the 15 or 16 digit number on the front of the card, and the authenticator was the three-to-four digit number on the back of the card (except in cases where a keypad is available, and then the identifier is the 15 or 16 digit number encoded on the mag strip and the authenticator is your 4 digit pin).
Nah, there are ways you can use the card number without the CVV1 or CVV2. And it's not like a three-digit authenticator adds very much security (more length there actually would help).
Perhaps they've evolved a better congressman.
Presuming these plumes are not one off events, couldn't we send an orbiter there to sample the plumes to at least get some idea of the chemistry of Europa's ocean, if not possibly outright detect signs of life?
On which basis then, to be logically consistent, we should be talking about water vapor, shouldn't we?
So google: Please don't filter out card numbers from your searches. The fault does not lie with google, but with those who put credit card numbers on the web for all to see.
I think Google did take that approach for several years, and it was found not to work. Specifically, the pages with all the card numbers didn't get taken down, and Google search made it trivial for people to find lots of potentially-valid CCNs.
Very true, although I would think a rather small minority would be 16 digits long and pass the Luhn test.
10% of random 15 and 16-digit numbers pass the Luhn test.
wrong. the bigger issue is why we are so silly as to use short 15 or 16 digit numbers for making financial transactions.
It's not the length that's the problem, it's the fact that we use the same value as both identifier and authenticator.
"Can an email server hold more than 1000 accounts?"
Oh, you Microsoft jokers...
IANAL, but I do follow legal issues quite closely, and read a lot of legal rulings. Absent ambiguity in the black letter law, which isn't present in this case, judges don't try to deduce intent. I'm fairly confident that in court it would be read exactly the way I'm reading it.
Also, I note that you still haven't provided a citation to any contrary law. In a separate thread another poster is telling me that there is state law to the effect of what you're saying, and claiming that it is identical across all 50 states. I'll see if he can find a citation (I've examined the law of two states and not found anything).
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment
In the USPS recommended actions, there is. In federal law, there is not. The legal definition of unordered merchandise is "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient" (See USC 39 3009(d)). The people ordered some merchandise but what they received was something else that was mailed without prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
True, at federal law, there isn't, because contracts for sale of goods are state law under the UCC, not the federal government. Under state law in every state, it's a solicited, but erroneous, shipment, and the seller has the opportunity to recover the incorrect goods at their expense and either cure by shipping the correct product or repudiate the sale and suffer penalties for breach.
Is this true even for interstate shipments? That seems unlikely. In addition, even for intrastate I think there's a good argument that such a state law contradicts federal law, if the shipment was sent via the postal service (though most such shipments are sent via UPS or FedEx, which may be different).
Also, do you have a citation (in any state) for the law you're claiming obligates the recipient (or buyer, whatever) to return the incorrect goods? I spent some time looking through Utah State Code, and it appears to me that upon receipt the buyer is fully justified in accepting the erroneous shipment and calling the transaction complete, if you choose to look at it as an error in the transaction, or in accepting the erroneous shipment as unrequested goods, and demanding that the original transaction be completed.