It's against the TOS for the user to let another access their account via the password. I didn't see anything in there about being on the receiving end. I would say it's implied, but it's not explicit. So security would be effectively forcing the user to violate the agreement with Facebook. Not sure how that plays out legally, but I'm assuming Facebook has every right to terminate their account for complying with the security check.
Here's the clause:
"You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
You will not transfer your account (including any Page or application you administer) to anyone without first getting our written permission."
It's not brain surgery.
And doubles the price increase from those sellers... suspiciously equal to the cost of the "free" shipping you paid for w/ Prime.
From third-party-sellers begging for reviews.
As a hypochondriac I'd be scared to take this test. Best case, I have one or all of these diseases. Worst case, I have no clue what I'm dying from.
I wondered the same thing. I understood that the battery itself wasn't the problem, but Samsung's insistence on making the device as small as possible, taking away clearance space that the battery otherwise needs to operate safely and efficiently.
You can still make up to five comedy reviews a week. Not all is lost.
What about the body's flora and immune system? Today, we have to get all sorts of shots before visiting certain foreign countries. Could it be that the future version of one's own country would be just as foreign in terms of whatever pathogens are common? Could the newly-revived body be ill-equipped to face this?
Good luck with that.
Amazon's lead is over when they've lost the market share, not when someone who wishes it were over announces it as such.
Are you really going to be THAT guy who takes a potentially ambiguous PARAPHRASING and then uses it to derail the larger point? Blizzard didn't even say this "contradiction". The article paraphrased it as such.
Blizzard said this "Defendants’ sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation."
It's fine to disagree with the larger point, but there's no need to start a side-show based on hearsay.
If you still need to nitpick, OK
"These bots and cheats also cause millions of dollars in lost sales, as they ruin the games for many legitimate players. "
There's no contradiction. They never said that the lost sales were from legitimate players. They just say that the game is ruined for legitimate players, and this results in lost sales.
If a brand of rice has been known to kill people because of listeria, this will result in lost sales. See? No contradiction.
Oh. That's new to me. I at least see a check box, one for MacAffee, the other for Intel True Key. But both are checked by default.
Trying to monetize the security upgrade process just reveals that you have an incentive to ship an insecure product.
For undermining security to try and trick users into installing McAffe when upgrading. That should be opt IN not opt OUT.
We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.