or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

I'm not sure that this is quite true but I agree that ACH security is quite poor.  As an example, I believe that if there is an authorization for ACH transfers on your account (and Citi does have this) then it's bi-directional. There is no way to say "I permit transfers into my account but no transfers out". Which means that if your employer does direct-deposit (via ACH, as is standard) then they can drain your account.  WTF ?!?
Actually, the victims of this fraud are mostly not users of Apple Pay. They're just ordinary folks who've had their credit card info hacked, and loaded onto a stolen iPhone (or one itself obtained by fraud).
Your mileage is not the same as mine. You have quite a bit to use it for as I did before I retired. But now it's a "compatibility" thing rather than an everyday one (or even every-week, some weeks). Subscription works for you but not for me.
Thanks for that info. I looked but didn't see that (guess I hadn't dug deep enough).
One thing for sure - I am NOT buying a subscription to get the new version. I have the standalone version of Office 2011 and paid for that just once. No way will I get on the yearly-fee treadmill.
"...in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product." It may be that the site hosting the product contains other, legal, content but the site is not that to which my mention of "100%" refers.  "100% of the product" does refer to the product, not the site.
You're right - there is some of that taste in this. [Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not "legal advice"] The original question asked about what constituted "irreparable harm" and not "what bases might there be for an injunction". One of them is irreparable harm but there are others, such as a refusal to pay license fees. So, in the context of your example, the studios would not be able to get an injunction on the basis of irreparable harm, but could get one because the...
 It's actually not that hard (setting aside certain weird exceptions). Basically it means that the hurt cannot be cured by applying money. Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the...
My understanding, which could be imperfect, is that certain parts of the chip are write-only and can't be read. So the issuing bank sets certain info into specific parts of the chip. A terminal (reader device) can request certain functions to be performed against the "secret stuff" written into the chip, but that can't be retrieved and cloned onto a new chip. Other parts of the chip can be read and written -- a PIN code can be changed, for example, on a chip+PIN...
Please don't hold your breath. What's coming is chip+signature, not chip+PIN (with a few possible exceptions). But chip+sig is a lot better than swipe cards because cloning isn't possible.
New Posts  All Forums: