those putting in solar are just blowing money.
Unless Solar provides another benefit that can actually be worth more than the added cost, for example: backup power to run the building if the aerial wires connecting the grid get taken down by bad weather or other act of nature during/after a natural disaster.
Most likely the pharmacy saves your contact info in their own customer database, which they hopefuly dont share.
Until a partner pays them enough for it, or a rogue employee finds a buyer....
A 15 year old who did not perform on a test, panics and does something stupid. Panic means: no reasoning, no oversight, and the existence of backups is totally forgotten, even if he knows about it.
Or such and such student figured that destroying the computer lab would also wipe out the records of his "All Fs" report card that he couldn't change by hacking, and he made a "rational choice" on the basis, that even if he would be caught, he anticipated being treated leniently because he was a child, and he knows that children get off lightly, And also nothing to lose, since he wouldn't graduate anyways with all those Fs.
don't just set a max for your bill and then shut you off if it goes over that, at least for billable items like long distanc
They can contact you, but POTS service and LD service are regulated by the FCC, and they can't turn off your service, until certain legally mandated requirements are met. It seems that turning off your LD service before a big bill can be incurred is not an option the telco is allowed to take, even if they wanted to.
It caught cryptowall 3.0 and all his files are now permanently irrecoverable.
In general that's not true; just help walk the customer through paying the ransom and retrieving their files... it's probably all they want, anyways.
Which is funny, since you actually didn't have to pay the bill.
The parent who had setup the service is still responsible for the usage of their service, and they can be held liable for usage they allowed their child to conduct.
"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."
This is an acknowledgement of a right that people as a whole have.
Individuals do not have this right, neither do small groups of people supporting a common cause.
And the moment a group of people begins to infringe upon someone else's rights, by causing harm to other people's safety, prosperity, or happiness, in a violent manner, their group changes from being a "protest" into an "illegal assembly", And every person participating in that illegal assembly is essentially aiding and abetting the terrorist acts against the public and the business owners.
IIRC; ATT still charges us extra for "Touch tone dialing", because it's a "Value-added feature", or some crap such as that.
Then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.
You missed a third alternative.... The price of Argentinian Pesos crashes utterly. So that amount of pesos officially worth "$50B USD" crashes down and becomes worth "$1B USD"
Argentenians buying Bitcoins doesn't necessarily elevate the value of Bitcoins ----- it can equally devaluate Pesos, resulting in more and more Pesos sold for fewer and fewer BTC per Peso.
That circles around towns lowering 'hooks' to grab people at designated points, pick them up, whisks them through the air aways -- without having to load them up into a cabin, and drops them off at their destination when they push their personal 'eject' button.
Did he sell the M60? No? Then no, he didn't complete Step 4.
I suspect Step 4. is totally awesome duck-hunting, not selling it.
A person in the FCC with past in the industry can be biased in favor of their previous employers in some ways, and not so biased in others.
In other words: the bias can be unintentional or subconcious and systemic ---- For example, it can lead to certain ways of thinking about certain policies ; However, in extreme situations, they will not overtly side with their past employer when it would be obviously to unfair degree against the interests of whom you are supposed to serve.
A good outcome out of a few policy definitions cannot definitely affect this for the positive.
It can be very easy to prove bias exists, if you have an extreme enough pattern.
Proving no bias or "fair treatment" not counting more than fair weight to the corporate position of previous employers, in policymaking consideration; would be extremely difficulty (if impossible) to ever establish.
So they're trying to protect the site's reputation AND their users' security.
Sure, they take the notification seriously and are patching by all apparent counts --- i'm not doubting that they are concerned about their site's security as well.
That doesn't fully speak to the purpose of the "responsible disclosure" policy, and why they've decided to smite the researcher, however.