Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Please.... (Score 1) 308

by mysidia (#46475293) Attached to: Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

which limits your liability to the amount pre-loaded on the card.

It limits your maximum possible liability, BUT it also creates a minimum liability, ensures you lose at least something --- such cards have a load fee, so you are guaranteed to lose X% of your money deposited, without it being spent towards useful purchases.

Also, the amount on the card is unlikely to be an exact multiple of amounts spent -- e.g. You have $10.00 on the card, but you need to spend $9.11 for the in-app purchase., so you have amounts like $0.89 left on each card you use, that becomes dormant and eventually gets lost.

Then there's the whole "inactivity fee" thing. If you go too long without making purchases, then, you start losing deposited balance.

Comment: Re:Please.... (Score 1) 308

by mysidia (#46475223) Attached to: Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

In other words, I want the option to avoid being asked the question every time, since it puts me one accidental tap away from unlocking purchases forever each time I buy something.

Stipulated; however, this is even more dangerous ---- if changing the setting does not also require that you enter the password again every time you want to change it.

Comment: Re: Please.... (Score 1) 308

by mysidia (#46475207) Attached to: Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

It doesn't matter what is in the contract with apple or bank. The charge put onto the credit card was an act of fraud perpetrated by the child. The card holder did not contractually consent to the transaction.

The card holder entered the number into their Google account, setup the account on the phone, and provided the child access to it, after authorizing with the password --- using an app under agreement whose terms include in-app purchases.

The parent is in the contractual relationship with the app maker, including provisions for the in-app sales, not the child, who cannot enter a contract in the first place. So, yes, it was a 'properly authorized' charge.

In principle: a dispute of the charge could be rejected, and incur the $50 chargeback fee on the consumer who attempted to do that.

Comment: Re:No contract, wifi-only (Score 1) 123

by mysidia (#46471425) Attached to: Replicant OS Developers Find Backdoor In Samsung Galaxy Devices

When did they become the retards of the RF world - I thought that title belonged to CB'ers? Honestly, hams are not interested in your phone.

Someone who happens to be a Ham operator, might use a radio-based exploit to attack their phone as a proof of concept.

But it's not likely..... they can't be transmitting on cell phone frequencies from their station anyways, as the transmission outside frequencies within their operating privileges would be a FCC violation that could get their station licenses revoked.

Comment: Maybe we should just tax them (Score 1) 685

1. Create a tax on coal and coal-based power generation designed to collect the $50 billion.

2. After revenue collected, begin the buyout and shutdown program.

HOWEVER, my suspicion is --- buyout a few companies, and the rest will become more expensive.

Buy out them all, and the CITIZENS will pay the price, as energy bills skyrocket.

Comment: Re:What we've learned from Bitcoin (Score 1) 206

by mysidia (#46469885) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies

each node will need about 2.6 TB of bandwidth each month, and that's just to handle the needs of 10% of the population of the United States, assuming 5 transactions per person per day.

2.6TB is insignificant -- it's at an average cost of about $1 a month on the average web hosting plan.

2.6TB per Month = about 8.4 Megabits sustained 24x7.

In a world where the average medium sized ecommerce site pulls sustained multiple Gigabits 24x7.

Comment: Re:What we've learned from Bitcoin (Score 1) 206

by mysidia (#46469825) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies

Or put it this way: the BTC network can handle about 604,800 transactions a day.

No.... the maximum block size can easily be expanded to 100MB, which will allow the chain to expand by approximately 14,399GB per day, or 49,151,923.200 transactions per day. It's just a software update. The arbitrarily limit of 1MB is only an arbitrary limit selected to protect against spam attacks; it can be changed.

Clients don't need to download the entire blockchain; only the headers need to be retained to verify things.

The protocol has been improved over time and will continue to improve.

As long as it is enhanced to accomadate new challenges, it should be successful.

Comment: Re:Crypto-coin advocates = anarchists or libertari (Score 2) 206

by mysidia (#46469603) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies

You failed to engage the implicit argument of noblebeast that states cannot be trusted to manage a currency that they can create by fiat

The biggest problem with Fiat currencies is not so much that they are originally created by Fiat. It's that the banks with the help of the government can change the rules later and print more bills, through fractional reserve, whenever they would like to do so.

With cryptocurrencies The rules are mathematically decided --- the creators of the protocol cannot arbitrarily change the rules later and start printing more coins at a quantity/rate not agreed to when the protocol was created. The rules can only change with agreement of the users of the currency.

Comment: Re:Valueless? (Score 1) 206

by mysidia (#46469307) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies

Every time I see/hear someone mention "[X] has no value!" I feel like I have to remind them of the subjectivity of value. Robert Heinlein, I feel, provided the best interpretation:

For the time being, the market has proven that they are worth something, by assigning a value to them on the exchanges.

If they are worthless, then by definition, nobody wants to pay anything for them.

Comment: Re:Is that so? (Score 2) 206

by mysidia (#46469293) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies

Except iTunes 1.0 didn't come out until the same year Napster was shut down.

I would say Napster -> Bittorrent

eGold -> Bitcoin

Napster was a centralized protocol, so it was vulnerable to a lawsuit against the company that ran it. Bittorrent with the distributed hash table was a distributed protocol that succeeded Napster. So far, nobody's managed to shutdown Bittorrent.

Comment: Re:$100 grand? Try $300 Million/yr (Score 1) 459

by mysidia (#46461185) Attached to: The $100,000 Device That Could Have Solved Missing Plane Mystery

That's pretty much the size of it. The plane had ADS-B, ACARS, etc... all of it (apparently) just went "dead" (or was shut off), all at the same time - no mayday call, no nothing.

This may be what the Malaysian airlines get for flying their planes into airspace where North Korea has missiles in the air testing Electro Magnetic Pulse technology.
