Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So... wait until you get home...? (Score 1) 306

by rjstanford (#48418471) Attached to: UK Hotel Adds Hefty Charge For Bad Reviews Online

If they didn't keep your transaction open, they wouldn't be able to charge you for damage or incidentals. It's why hotels require credit cards for bookings in the first place. Usually they haven't seen your room when you check out.

Unless they saved the credit card number, either directly or through vaulting at their provider. Both of those are easy and common, and the second one is even safe (since it only allows that particular merchant to charge the card at will, it doesn't appeal to thieves like an actual credit card number would).

Comment: Re:The answer is...virtual credit cards (Score 1) 306

by rjstanford (#48418453) Attached to: UK Hotel Adds Hefty Charge For Bad Reviews Online

Except... Once the guests are at the hotel and checking in, the hotel will ask for their credit card and pre-auth the amount. Why would you pre-auth a card marked not to be used except if the guests do not show up? This card you should reserve the cost of a single night at the time of booking, and clear once the guests arrive.

Because that's the only way to tell that its a real credit card instead of a bunch of made up numbers that happen to look like a credit card number. The whole reason that pre-authorizations exist is to allow people to show that they're "good for the debt" without actually paying for it (yet).

Comment: Re:To be expected (Score 1) 472

by rjstanford (#48412535) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Yes, but how much more would it make if all those private servers were monetized?

People fail to do the math properly. Dropping free usage by 99% and increasing paid usage by 10% still increases paid usage by 10% - and at the end of the day, that's what's important to the owners of most commercial ventures.

Comment: Re:You get what you deserve (Score 1) 327

by rjstanford (#48411283) Attached to: Apple Disables Trim Support On 3rd Party SSDs In OS X

Nobody is forced to buy their stuff. People who choose to buy deserve being treated like this.
It is pretty clear what apple thinks of their users, and they are right.

Yup. Apple thinks that their users are the kind of people who value a machine that doesn't randomly lose all of its data after an SSD upgrade and don't want to spend the time to do the brand research themselves, rather than the kind of people who desperately value a .03% gain in SSD performance after said upgrade.

Apple happens to be pretty much right about that. Even as a developer, one of the reasons that I prefer Apple kit to code on is that I don't have to worry about working on it as well as what I'm supposed to be working on.

Comment: Re:Signed by whom? (Score 1) 327

by rjstanford (#48411175) Attached to: Apple Disables Trim Support On 3rd Party SSDs In OS X

By whom? Can the owner of a Mac choose which code signing certificate authorities to trust? If not, how does that inability benefit the computer's users?

Yup. Of course, doing that is a little technically challenging - probably intentionally, since people blindly doing so would defeat the entire purpose. Many posts in this thread have information about signing your own certs, for that matter.

Comment: Re:Summary is misleading, you can work around (Score 1) 327

by rjstanford (#48411119) Attached to: Apple Disables Trim Support On 3rd Party SSDs In OS X

Yes, all you need to do is become an Apple developer and pay the $100 for a dev cert if you want to take the easy way, or spend an extra 5 minutes and generate your own cert for code signing and add it to the system keychain. Neither are particularly difficult for a developer type of person to do, probably a little beyond the scope of your average desktop user though

Making arcane things that could potentially screw up your system beyond the scope of an average desktop user is generally seen as a Good Thing, too :)

Comment: Re:Signing drivers (Score 1) 327

by rjstanford (#48411103) Attached to: Apple Disables Trim Support On 3rd Party SSDs In OS X

Getting "permission" to sign a KEXT (from Apple)

What gives Apple the right to decide what one can do with their computer? If I want to allow a particular KEXT to run, I should be allowed to. Microsoft asks for every unsigned driver if I wish to allow the installation. Why can Apple not support driver approval by the user? Or does Apple actually believe that it knows better?

Because Apple's support includes supporting the entire solution - hardware and installed OS. When things go wrong they'll actually work with you to fix them rather than simply pointing fingers. Naturally this gives them a really strong incentive to make sure that both of those item continue to work in harmony; part of their approach to that is restricting the more arcane things that the majority of end-users don't have enough experience to do safely.

For anyone who has enough experience to know when to accept an unsigned kernel extension, there's a trivial command to allow it; I happen to agree that people who can't figure out how to enable unsigned drivers really shouldn't be installing them.

Comment: Re:Can't trust robots (Score 1) 223

by rjstanford (#48388665) Attached to: Comet Probe Philae To Deploy Drill As Battery Life Wanes

Launch mass of Rosetta was 3000kg (3Mg). The lander mass is 100kg. Only counting the mass of the lander and not counting the mass of the Rosetta craft that got it there is like only counting the mass of the astronaut and not the mass of the ship. You still have a large multiple, but 30 times less than you calculated.

So only 500X? Oh, well then. Let's get going tomorrow!

Comment: Retailers Already Pay (Score 1) 127

The cost of fraud and security is built in to the interchange rates that make up the bulk of card-present fees from Visa et al. By and large, the retailers already cover those costs. If specific retailer-focussed fines are put in place they should be accompanied by a drop in interchange rates (not going to hold my breath here). Also, by reducing cost-sharing and increasing self-insurance, that's another way of squeezing out smaller merchants (who can't begin to cover those costs) in favor of the larger ones (who don't need external underwriting to do so).

Comment: Re:subpoenas for all sermons on Houston too? (Score 1) 330

by rjstanford (#48296067) Attached to: Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology

I don't think anyone would argue against their right to say it - making it not a first amendment issue - what's being argued is that they may not have the right to continue to claim the right to avoid both taxes and financial disclosure while at the same time saying what they're saying. That's very different.

Comment: Re:subpoenas for all sermons on Houston too? (Score 1) 330

by rjstanford (#48296053) Attached to: Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology

That's one area I'd love to see some Supreme Court guidance on. The issues really stem from the fact that Churches are granted an unprecedented tax exemption (every other organization that wants to not pay taxes has to open its books for a start) in exchange for following a very small yet undefined set of rules, some of the most important being 1) claiming to be a church and 2) agreeing to stay out of politics. Risking that massive taxpayer subsidy for a violation of the staying out of politics rules seems like a poor decision on their part at the very least.

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?

Working...