On 8 Feb 2005 Jochem Maas wrote: > don't agree - I'd rather be cautious on a hunch, especially given that I > have no means to personally verify the risk other than in terms of total > financial ruin if a real problem occurs even once. besides its a moot point > there is no need to handle creditcard info in 99.99999999999% of all cases > (the rest being covered by amazons,paypals,etc) Well OK, there is no urgent *need*. But accepting credit cards is a valid and useful approach for many sites. The worst-case imagined distasters do not make this less true. I cannot verify in advance that a car driven by a drunk driver will not drive down my street at the moment I walk out of the house, hit me on the sidewalk, and kill me. I do not *need* to leave my house in most cases, I could order almost everything I need to be delivered. But it still does not make sense to stay in the house all the time (and there are other dangers there anyway). The possibility of catastrophic consequences which you cannot control is not a reason to always opt for the most cautious possible approach. However I would agree it is a reason to thoughtfully assess the risks and make a choice. > then again there are +-2billion people with limited/no access to running water... > maybe we shouldn't blow the CCN thing out of proportion :-/ Good point. -- Tom -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
