or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Not really - if one applied the same slippery slope reasoning to their other activities then one would expect them to have done much worse than they have. The dire predictions being made here require that they have malicious intent and the connivance of future governments, which is obviously possible but really does represent a cynical and worst-case assumption. I still find it incongruous that people are claiming that a measure to ensure net neutrality is a precursor to...
AMEX are very good with those kinds of notifications, but none of my other card issuers have that functionality as far as I can tell.
I'm not sure that it should be Apple's responsibility to certify the banks - that might be taken to leave them with some liability if the bank screws up like this. It's the banks who lose out here - presumably both financially and in terms of their reputation - and that should be enough incentive for them to fix this.
It sounds like there are plenty of cases but I'm sure that the banks are not publicizing those cases. The headline was certainly open to misinterpretation, but the article makes it pretty clear that the fault lies with the banks, which have failed to foresee this issue and effectively made the authorization process the same as for activation of a physical card. In the card case, however, exploitation obviously required two failures - criminal interception of a new card and...
 I assume that you mean "straw man" arguments, but I didn't make any. The fallacies are all on your side. Your characterization of the major cause of revolution is quaint, but incorrect. The entire purpose of establishing a process of government is to serve the interests of the people and, while that has often been subverted, the implication of your statement is therefore that all governments should be overthrown. Maybe you believe that, in which case feel free to say so...
He may or may not turn out to be wrong, but he provides no reasoning or evidence for his assertions, and refuses to even to engage in discussion (the homework clause). An entirely unsupported prediction is indistinguishable from a random guess and, in this context, equally pointless.
Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any...
 It wasn't my quote, so I'm not cherry-picking anything. However, the context of the quote was clearly to support a previous comment that only a very limited part of the document contained the proposed regulations. It did just that. The rest of the quote (above) is also accurate, but did not pertain to that point. For which, however, you accused the poster of lying, taking quotes out of context, and making a point that did not exist. Don't you ever get tired of having your...
 No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context. And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
 I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
New Posts  All Forums: