For contactless cards, sure, but many are still contact-based chip cards. The DoD uses contact-based SmartCards. Also, aren't contactless cards inherently less secure due to the fact that you don't actually need to make physical contact with the card?
That sounds like a citation is needed. According to the article "citing evidence in Chelsea Manning's trial, where Assange assisted Manning with password cracking to sweep up digital breadcrumbs". Further, from the linked WaPo article, "Manning chatted with Assange about a technique to crack a password so Manning could log on to a computer anonymously, and that conversation, which came up during Manning’s court-martial, could be used as evidence that WikiLeaks went beyond the role of publisher or journalist."
Now I don't know if explaining a password cracking technique to someone makes you guilty of assisting them when that person then uses the technique, but I also don't know the details of this particular conversation or how involved Assange was.
If you assist someone in hacking a government computer, shouldn't you be liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? I'm following the part about journalists helping someone cover their tracks, but this goes beyond that by doing something that is itself illegal, ie. password cracking a government computer, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
I haven't taken the "But they weren't in effect yet" argument to mean we're better off without them. I've seen it more as an argument against why things will suddenly be allowed to get so horribly bad. The rules weren't in effect yet and things weren't bad, therefore without the rules it won't all of a sudden become a post-apocalyptic world. Yes we'd be better off with the rules than without, but the mentality of "OMG, they killed the rules, the internet is over" is way overblown because the rules weren't even in effect yet anyway so cancelling them doesn't change anything but allow them to continue doing what they were already doing.
He actually didn't vote at all. Isakson (R-GA) is the other who also didn't vote. Had both voted No it would've been a split 50-50, gone to the VP for a tie-break, and the result would've likely been the same anyway. Not a single republican actually voted no.
Does trademarking something stop someone from using the trademarked term when referring to what the trademarked term was trademarked to refer to?
In slightly less confusing terms...if President Trump trademarked "President* Trump", would it actually stop anyone from using the term "President* Trump" if they were in fact referring to President Trump?
Just because Apple trademarked "iPhone", I can still say iPhone if I'm talking about the iPhone. But I can't release a new phone and call it the iPhone because it wouldn't be referring to the trademarked iPhone.
Yes, and I think if you do just that (purchase from the manufacturer), there is no upgrade fee, because in VZW's eyes you're bringing your own phone, not upgrading. I think the upgrade fee used to actually be the cost associated with transferring IMEIs on your account. It's understandable if you're buying a phone in the store and requiring an associate to manually do the transaction in the system for you, but with the internet now you can buy the phone from VZW and sign into your account to transfer service to a different phone. It should really just be the cost of doing business, like credit card fees.
No such thing as what? If you mean wireless carriers are actually operating in a free market, then please, tell the class how a small business startup can get into the wireless provider arena when it requires purchasing licenses for the electromagnetic spectrum from the FCC (the Government part of the government granted monopolies). The last spectrum auction pulled $19.6 billion (with a B) for 5 blocks of the spectrum. How does a small business enter that market without being a MVNO and paying huge royalties to the big boys?