wrongfully?
"make full restitution of all funds wrongfully obtained,"
Were the funds actually wrongfully obtained? Wrongfully lost perhaps.
2726 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Apr 2007
The very features that make Bitcoin attractive to some also attract criminals who are able to disguise their actions from law enforcement.
Sounds like US cash.
Anonymity combined with Bitcoin’s ability to finalize transactions quickly, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse fraudulent transactions.
Sounds like US cash.
I am most concerned that as Bitcoin is inevitably banned in other countries, Americans will be left holding the bag on a valueless currency.
Sounds like US cash.
I'm not sure that Microsoft will ever really get a grip on China. I just found this 2007 article on CNN.com.
By 2001, Microsoft executives were coming to the conclusion that China's weak IP-enforcement laws meant its usual pricing strategies were doomed to fail. Gates argued at the time that while it was terrible that people in China pirated so much software, if they were going to pirate anybody's software he'd certainly prefer it be Microsoft's.
Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-term strategy. That's why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs. "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," Gates says. "Are you kidding? You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." Indeed, in China's back alleys, Linux often costs more than Windows because it requires more disks. And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.
Unencrypted wallet does seem a bit harsh, but wouldn't it take more than that? It seems to me that the attacker would have to install a virus or keylogger, and that requires root privileges. I can guess how that happened, but nevertheless these were rather trusting souls.
You set it up the way you want. The WP menu looks like this:
Before a comment appears
- Before a comment appears An administrator must always approve the comment
- Comment author must have a previously approved comment
Chose the second one and it's easy to administer. I've set them up that way for years. Having people "sign up" to your blog is just a silly idea in most cases. As far as I can tell, the only reason for multiple logins is if there are multiple authors or it's a private blog with no public access. Neither of those two are very common.
Why would anybody except a single admin have to log into a WordPress site? Users can participate in the discussion without logging in. I've seen sites where there is an ability for users to log in, but am unaware of any practical use for that. I host a number of WordPress sites myself, and haven't found that "feature" useful.
There's plenty of those around already. Is this going to make much difference? It's not like Linksys/Belkin is known for fine router software and somebody would buy one of these particular models based on some assumption of quality. More like these are marketed to the crowd who already has some virus running on their computer.
I find it depressing that only 31% are savvy enough to obfuscate their data.
I have little respect for Facebook, but if I'm going to agree to their TOS, then I'm not going to lie. That's a matter of self respect to me. Compromising one's principles for the sake of Factbook? Is it really that valuable? I sincerely hope that there's at least a couple of people in that other 69% who don't think so.
I keep contact with my social group by individual communications as opposed to giving them all access to my day-to-day activities. Has this resulted in a loss of closeness with 'friends' I don't see very often? Not for me personally, but maybe for some people this is a big deal.
The thing about Facebook that works for them is that it requires no ownership or knowledge of the internet, and because "everybody" is doing it, they are motivated to learn how to navigate the software. So yes, I understand why it's a big deal for some. They could achieve the same thing without joining somebody else's walled garden - they just don't know that.
Closeness with friends and ability for long lost ones to find you can easily be done on an individual basis without Facebook. It is just that few people are willing to use the tools unless they are fashionable. In my opinion this is a serious social problem, and it is the one that Zuckerberg has addressed for them.
As someone who could reasonably claim to have been at the forefront of electronic communication . . .
I think that there are many here who fall into that category. In reading the comments, I'm surprised at how many of them don't seem to believe that the tools which I would assume are so obvious to them, are not applicable to the discussion about Facebook. In fact I have a feeling that they don't really understand what could, or could not, be good or bad about Facebook. They just have an opinion. Yes, I too think that the article was a good read.