160 posts • joined Wednesday 26th March 2008 14:00 GMT
I was just reading this on the Daily Mash: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/science-fiction-fans-now-harder-than-football-fans-2013051668958 and wondering what on Earth they were satirising. Now I know... the mind boggles.
Re: @Equitas - (Unfortunately) you are wrong!
As others have said, the seller is taking the risk, not the card holder - you got the fradulent transaction returned to you didn't you? You were mildly inconvenienced perhaps, the seller lost the funds and is out the item they shipped to the non-registered address.
The reason merchants take the risk is that so many people want it. For all sorts of reasons people find it convenient to have things shipped to alternate addresses, so merchants offer them the service and take the risk.
If you really want to blame someone who isn't the thief, blame yourself for allowing your card details to escape into the wild. Without that, the unfortunate merchant wouldn't have been defrauded (yes I recognise that with the way the system works, this is pretty much impossible and there are so many compromised cards out there that one more is utterly irrelevant. But it makes more sense from blaming the poor merchant for being defrauded).
Re: re: evidence that someone didn't read the article
It clearly states that Bloomberg has said that messaging data was not available. Which isn't quite the same thing.
Re: Expert help...
Probably depends on how many orbits it takes to dock with the ISS. Wiki says it is travelling at 17,277mph, which is a lot of two quids...
You can easily get a second cup out of a teabag, just let it steep for a while longer. More probably, if you are desparate.
Re: What about our Queen?
Didn't Michelle Obama commit some faux pas with the queen? Which was a handy way of identifying people who enjoy getting upset over fuck all.
(why no edit function)Perhaps that is only their costs though.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the article, I think Oracle paid for the costs of both sides up to the point of the offer.
"So, if you want to make a case into a precedent which helps other people in the future (which is possible the case here) then you HAVE to push through to a final legal decision. At which point the court claims that you've wasted its time."
Just playing devil's advocate (ha!) but if she was offered a settlement that was significantly higher than he award, then she doesn't seem to have suceeded in adding anything extra to the case law. So either she was after some additional judgement that she failed to get, or the settlement was all she was ever likely to achieve (in the opinion of the court). In either case I can see some justification for the other side not to have to cover their own costs beyond that point.
Completely ignorant of the case though, which is never a good position to form opinions from.
Isn't this just for these early adopters, before the device is on general sale? Which makes some sense since with them only available invite-only, there will be plenty of people willing to pay well over the odds for them.
If this is part of the retail TOS then I agree there is an issue, but I don't see any reason to assume it is - there would seem to be legal issues apart from anything else.
Think about what you would have to convince a Thatcher hater of to get them to change their opinion of her.
An unavoidable part of her not being an evil witch who destoryed livlihoods across the country for some evil purpose of her own, is that the damage done in the eightess was unavoidable and was simply due to the state of the country when she took over.
In other words it was due to the lefty/corporationist post-war consensus policies so beloved of Thatcher haters. To absolve Thatcher they not only have to forget their hate of her, they have to realise and admit to themselves that all the things they blame her for were actually their fault, or the fault of those they support.
Good luck with that, but I think you're fighting against human nature on this one.
Re: Read by people who like tech and hate thieves.
"Where's the thieve hating bit of the site? I seem to be stuck in the tech. half...."
I sodding hate thieves. I had some chap (ooh, and he sounded foreign too) give me a stolen card over the phone for £500 worth of stuff yesterday, and I'd happily strangle him if I could get my hands on him.
But I'm not going to go a witch hunt for the ultimate recipient of an item that was stolen thousands of miles away from them. Its ridiculous.
Re: UK Keyboard must be a give away?
As someone else mentioned, Iran is under international sanctions. I'd imagine there is a huge second hand market in all sorts of products, sourced from all over.
It is a bit odd - while El Reg has its fair share of idiots, I've never seen anything as bad as the ignorance displayed in some of these comments by quite a wide margin.
Re: They bought a stolen laptop.
Knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime. And you have no right to retain stolen goods even if purchased in good faith. But the second isn't criminal in any way, just bad luck/poor judgement on the purchaser's part since they will now lose the goods without compensation.
The family in question offered to return the laptop, according to its owner. He has made a gift of it to them to apologise for what he himself has described as an invasion of their privacy.
In short, WTF are you on about?
Re: Could apply even to "real" conversations.
Since we are into cultural stereotypes, I got a lift from an Italian once who seemed absolutely incapable of talking without taking both hands of the wheel to gesticulate.
Re: > how lone/small groups ... could be protected
If patents weren't invented to turn an intangible - the implementation of an idea - into something that could be treated as a product, what were they created for?
Re: > how lone/small groups ... could be protected
Even companies that exist simpy to buy patents up and licence them isn't theoretically a bad thing. Having a market like that allows companies to sell patents to realise funds for other activities, and allows creditors to recover some money form a bankrupt debtor. The problem is a combination of these comapnies, and some of the ridiculously broad patents that are floating arround, especially in the software realm. Defensive patents, patent thickets and so forth. There are any number of large companies which have on their books patents that allegedly give them rights over entire markets, and basic functions of mainstream programming languages. Never tested, never really intended to be enforced, rather emassed to ward off the threat of litigation from competitors with similarly broad portfolios.
When one of these companies go bust and their patents get on to the market, we get wholely unuseful threats of litigation. But blaming the "trolls" misses the point - the problem is (some of) the patents.
Re: Weapons in spaaaace
Because a major nation having the power to wipe out whole countries with wweapons of mass destruction would be a major change too the balance of power?
Re: Call me cynical
Do these companies actually have regular investors? I mean people primarily trying to make a profit.
I got the impression that funding these sort of things was in the rich man's toy category.
Just leaving this here...
But even just considered as a city, London has a great deal of history. Its the formost city in Europe (in my obviously unbiased opinion...). Hell its been around twice as long as there has been a country of England.
I can understand why people get annoyed at London-centric views, but I think you've fallen into the trap of dismissing it to much. I might have made that point a little less snarkily however - not enough cofee for 9:30am.
I was actually aiming at the post above yours. As far as distinguishing between the place and the population, I think that when you talk about a city (or indeed a country), it is pretty obvious that you are referring to the place and its inhabitants, not just the geography.
Chip on your shoulder much? London is an awesome city with an awesome history, it isn't its fault it makes you feel insignificent.
Re: Could be worse
"Maybe we need a "Bad Joke Alert" icon."
We need an "ignore future comments from this poster" button is what we need.
Re: YouTube would need to offer a better way to find content
They are hardly going to be charging for access for infringing material.
There are actually some very good pieces of original content on Youtube these days, and I'm not talking cat videos. Though I have to admit I'm a bit pressed to think of any I'd actually pay for personally, but it may work for some people.
Re: History and culture
My understanding - I don't claim any expertise - was that Jutland was an attempt to destroy *part* of the Royal Navy battleships by trapping them into fighting piecemeal. Not simply setting out to go toe to toe against the entire fleet in order to fight a decisive battle for naval dominance.
Anyway metal ships are boring and don't really count.
Television you say?
I remember them.
Re: History and culture
"Trafalgar was a key historical event in the history of the United Kingdom, but it is hard to say it is a defining event of British (or even English) culture any more than the hundreds of other related events."
It marks the last time the Royal Navy was challenged in an all-out fleet action. Literally from that point until the carrier age, Britain was the uncontested naval power of the world. Nations that fought Britain might try to go after her trade ships, or act where the navy was weak. But no one tried to assemble a battle fleet and fight head on.
I'd say that this had a pretty profound impact over the direction of British culture for the next century and a half or so.
"They probably didn't work directly as a merchant, but used a 3rd party web payment processing service to take the payments for them."
Still strange that that firm let it go through. Presumably they were left with the bill. You here loads of stories of Paypal freezing peoples accounts because they are worried about this sort of thing - indy computer games trying to fund themselves on pre-orders pre-Kickstarter, or a new business that opens a few month before Christmas and is unexpectedly successful, and then is driven out of business because it has its funds withheld, leaving it unable to purchase stock to fulfil all the orders its taken.
The other thing I don't understand is why they needed customers at all... They had the compliant merchant account by whatever method, surely it would have been much easier just to buy a load of compromised cards from someone who's hacked a database somewhere, then just run the transactions through themselves. Apple got stung by someone listing an App with them and then doing that I seem to recall. Cue loads of outraged iApp developers when Apple started deferring payment for months.
Getting a merchant account with no trading history, putting £3mil through it, and being able to get the fund out quickly enough to pull a disapearing act... that is pretty magical.
Since these were online purchases, the people who lost money would have been able to do chargebacks and be reembursed. The party who actually stood to lose the money was whoever issued them their merchant account. And banks are very well aware of this exact risk, which is why they behave like such bastards to new small business who want merchant accounts. So how did it happen in this case?
Possibly their was some identity fraud involved. Pretend to be someone who had a long history with that bank. Or someone who had enough assets to provide a directors guarantee for the entire amount. Again banks are aware of the risk, so it must have been pretty well done.
Not magic. But it is certainly remarkable.
Cameron: "If you don't do as I say I'm not playing"
Europe: David, you lost the election remember? You aren't Prime Minister any more"
Re: All very well but
Assuming the sheep was in inter-stella space, and not pointed at anything with gravity sufficent to capture it, to the ends of the unverse.
Re: Mega dumb
Re: "a quarter that of The Sun"
Re: Correlation != causation
I didn't get the impression that the author of this article was taking it entirely seriously...
"All it needs to know is that what it is building scares off predators."
Just to clarify (I'm sure you're aware) that it doesn't need to 'know' anything (which is a good thing since it is just a spider afterall).
All it needs to do is behave according to how its genes dictate, and if it gets a small advantage over its peers in terms of becoming a reproductive sucess by behaving in this way, then these genes will over generations become more common and more refined within its species.
Re: @Mike2R (weird)
LOL, thanks Tom.
"...flaw to avoid offending the Gods."
Oddly appropriate since the lack of proof reading was due to me trying to comment without the boss realising I was posting to a forum ;)
Not only that, I imagine executives of publicly traded companies are legally obliged to serve their shareholders by minimising their tax bill. So we have the bizarre site of committees of people who make the laws, railing against people for obeying them.
Why don't they do something useful and change the damn laws?
Re: Definitely a success
Ah, probably something different then. The CSS gets rid of the Watch/Listen and In Pictures sections.
The principle is the same though, since the BBC seems to have a nice html structure and lots of class names. When you see the bit you want to eliminate view source, find the containing div or whatever of the thing you want gone, and set it to display:none. If it isn't nicely named you can probably kludge something with child selectors.
Re: Definitely a success
If you are talking about what I think you are by mini-slideshow thing, try this in a user style sheet:
Re: Something extra to embarrass junior with
That was my thought. Thank fuck they didn't have these around when I was a tadpole.
I was honestly about 3 paragraphs in before I stopped wondering why the Register was so interested in the gemstone business.
"IWF analysts encountered more than 12,000 such images and videos spread over 68 websites."
Bloody careers adviser never even *mentioned* that option...