"He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena."
Hmm, perhaps that says something about geophysicists? If you only look at your computer screen and formulas you tend to miss things. Like reality.
Remember, you don't need to know much geology to be a geowizard, er I mean, geophysicist.:) Good geophysicists know a LOT of geology (in addition to other subjects).
"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters."
Just like any field there are those in it for the knowledge and those in it for the money and fame. Well, the money part I find hard to believe.... Scientists run the gamut from idiot to genius. They do hunt for grants because they want to continue to do science. Getting a grant is NOT easy. Realize that much science is guided by the availability of grants. Grants tend to be most available for the popular areas of research-this is often out of the scientists hands. Much research, such as volcanology, would not be done without public funding.
Anyone who idolizes scientists is a moron.
"Is oil possibly a renewable resource..."
Yes. On a geological time scale.
"Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade?"
This has been determined to a reasonable certainty. It's the effects everyone argues....
"How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?"
Huh?
"but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts."
Scientists do not make public policy, politicians do. Repeat until you grok this. Finally, government is for the common good, which means it spends money on things you don't want and I don't want. Research funding is pathetically small-I would go out on a limb and say it is close to a rounding error in the current budget.
"Plextor *USED* to make the best writers, but their 740 series has a VERY HIGH failure rate, and the 716 is actually a remarked Benq drive!"
Never trust someone who gives incorrect information. The Plextor 740 is a remarked BENQ drive (as is the SONY DRU810a). Of course, the BENQ has more features and is cheaper than the rebadged drive, if you can find it.....
The 716 is a nice drive if cost is no object. The BENQ is the best drive for the money (DW1640).
"It figures. A technological advance that would cut the number of traffic deaths by about 95%...."
You mean COULD. At the present time most people cause no traffic deaths at all. Most people don't cause accidents. Human drivers are a proven, if faulty, method.
An autopilot system has to be better than an excellent driver. It has to be nearly perfect. Why? Well, humans are assumed to be imperfect..... More to the point, if you have never caused any accidents, why exactly would you want to switch to an imperfect autopilot? And everyone starts out perfect.... And considering the dangerous defects some manufacters accept in their vehicles most people rightly think that the autopilot wouldn't be any better.
Ultimately, people accept risks that they believe they can control and don't accept ones they can't and/or don't understand. I don't see that changing. But if you create an almost perfect autopilot system, it WILL be used/nmandated. But we aren't anywhere near that yet. The DARPA course has as much relevence to real life driving as the practical drivers test.
"But that's government for you - instead of making one flat rate tax (perhaps as a sales tax on consumables) to pay for themselves - they end up chiseling money from you here and there."
Because that is what people want. Oh, they say they would like a flat rate but their actions dictate otherwise. You know, the people who want breaks for home ownership, being married, having kids, buying food, investing, using/not using certain things (roads, transit, parks, fuel, etc.), etc. In other words, pretty much all of us.
Valuing software is no more difficult than valuing land. Probably easier because the purchase price is known and happens much more often.
Second, you really think software doesn't make people money? If it didn't make people money, it wouldn't be used. After all, you can write letters on typewriters, do bookkeeping on paper, and drafting without computers. It adds value.
Software does have value. It is property. Thus it is reasonable to tax it. One could make an argument that it is unfair NOT to tax it. After all, why should a business that uses software to produce products be taxed lower than a company that uses hardware? What is the fundamental difference between a printing press and a computer, printer and the software for instance? Furthermore, the article states that some counties ALREADY tax it. So this is not a change as much as a clarification.
It certainly may not be easy to do. But if you can value property (land) you sure as heck can assign a value to software. The ultimate goal of the assessors office is to insure that property is valued correctly-they don't set tax rates. There may be valid reasons to exempt it-but that is for the legislature to decide.
* There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties."
That doesn't make it legal. But most important-WE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A WAR. There has been no declaration of war by Congress. Declare an official war and I might be a tad more accepting. Not a vague excuse to expand excutive powers.
"Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country."
Oh, I believe that he believes he is doing this to defend the country. He is wrong. The greatest threat to this country comes from the executive branch not the terrorists.
"I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets."
So, breaking the law is okay just as long as it doesn't benefit you? And unless you have a security clearance AND are part of the group involved in the intelligence gathering you would have no real evidence.
I have no significant problem with this being used against foreign powers or citizens. Unease, yes. But there is no excuse for its use against US citizens. If you can't get a rubber stamp from a FISA court, retroactively, the intelligence has no value for fighting terrorism. As a matter of fact, we don't lack intelligence-we had enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The problem is using the intelligence and the right kind of intelligence (on the ground in foreign countries). If anything it can be argued that this program makes us less safe.
Frankly he sounds like a typical prosecutor. Remember, they only prosecute people they BELIEVE are guilty. This is quite different from the judicial SYSTEM assuming innocence. It isn't the job of a prosecutor (or defense lawyer for that matter) to be impartial-only the judge and jury.
"AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo. He is now trying to investigate transactions made between AIG and the Starr Foundation going back to 1967 in order to find something to justify the ruining of the lives of lots of people at those companies."
He may be an asshole, he may overreach but according to you AIG had to restate earnings for FIVE years. That isn't a minor mistake. In many companies stockholders rightfully flee like rats from a sinking ship when something like this happens. And the fact that you find major accounting violations strongly suggest other lapses....
In short, the primary people responsible for ruining the careers and lives of people at AIG are the current and former management. The AG is only the messenger. Even if he is a vindictive one.....
"And one can buy a great many books about things like Hobbits, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Buddha, and, sure enough, Jesus. Just because there are books does not make a thing true, and no amount of repeating an untrue thing ever will."
What do you mean Hobbits aren't real? I just saw a documentary on them by Peter Jackson!:)
"ID is not meant to explain how God exists. ID is not even meant to prove that God exists, contrary to what most people think. ID does not mention God, it simply says that there is intellegence inherit in the mechanic of the universe that guides the development of existence."
Of course it is not meant to prove that God exists. That is its premise. It doesn't mention God because otherwise everyone would call it creationism. Hard to get that into a science class.... Hell, it isn't even a theory (as in wild assed guess) much less a scientific one. It's a belief. Heck, it's not even supported by most religions. In other words, it's pretty useless.
"Yes, many aspects of evolution have been shown to be true (like microevolution), but taken as a whole, evolution still does not explain the fundamental question of how we came to be. In fact, this question more properly belongs in the realm of philosophy, but small minded atheists insist on discussing it within the realm of science."
Sorry, but evolution does explain how we came to be. Now if you mean how life started, well, then you would be correct about evolution. But researching how life began is certainly a valid scientific endeavor. Philosophy doesn't have much to add-it's much better for the "why are we here" and "what is our purpose".
"Asking someone to explain why one painting is better visually composed than another requires a large degree of intelligence, but unfortunately, such explanations cannot be objectively rated."
There is a large difference between difficult and impossible. I'm willing to bet this is done all the time in certain majors..... Or are you saying you couldn't objectively rate the explanations showing a badly painted stick figure is not as well composed as the Mona Lisa? One would suspect an intelligent person would realize this.
Precisely why they want to tax you-buying online to avoid the tax. On some level I don't have a problem with this. This is the rationale used when trying to tax online/catalog sales.
However, I suspect many people buy online because of BETTER service and selection. Not because of taxes. There are times when I spend more on the product plus shipping than I would have on the product plus taxes. Frankly most local merchants suck in service and selection. Pretty sad when I can get a better shopping experience online than in person. This is the reason that many stores lose sales to online retailers (or for that matter larger retailers)-if your service doesn't make up for your prices people WILL go elsewhere when they have the opportunity.
To put it another way, I will pay more for good service online or off, but if I am going to get crappy service I will go for the cheapest price online or off....
"I mean asking about the system itself, and whether or not it's the best way to do things."
And that would be a worthless question. Of course it isn't. But any "simple" tax system would last only slightly longer than it would take the ink to dry on the legislation.
Because WE WANT social engineering. Remember that ALL deductions/exemptions are loopholes. What do low capital gains taxes, low inheritance taxes, IRA deductions, education credits, ethanol tax credits and mortgage deductions have in common? They are loopholes. Just like exempting food from sales tax.
We could create a simpler tax code. But it wouldn't stay simple for long. Not to mention the outcry-look at the proposed change to home ownership deductions that would affect relatively few people. Politicians don't lose elections over the current tax code but they could over the changes.....
"Isn't this exactly right? As a war-time Commander-in-Chief, the President has the duty to do everything possible to protect US citizens from the enemy. Of course, a few key definitions have been re-defined by this Administration in recent years:"
One little problem. We are not at war. Of course that might go to your redefinition of war.... If Congress had declared war I could accept (maybe not stomach) his explanation.
"While I do like the idea of getting soldiers out of action, I don't expect that giving them all double pneumonia is really a good way to do it."
As temperature changes don't cause bacterial or viral illnesses, I don't see the problem.
I certainly wonder why they just don't put AC in the vehicles that can handle the load. Keep the temperatures reasonable and you will stay acclimated. No other problems. It's not like the enemy is homing in on the heat signatures....
"Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument."
Oh, I see. All these imperfections in things too incredibly complex to have evolved is just due to an all powerful God who is just really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean.... Saying it was good implies a tad bit more than adequate.... Sorry, but if you believe that your diety can create the universe that argument just doesn't cut it.
If creation wasn't perfect that strongly implies God isn't. That God has weaknesses. Perhaps God really isn't all that powerful. You see the logical progression here? That's the problem with using the bible as anything more than a guide. At best it is a book "inspired by actual events".
"The big downside is that India is not an ethnically diverse country. Thus, the results are not necessarily transferrable."
Have you ever LOOKED at PI sheets for medications or the compositions of study groups US and Europe? Obviously not or you would have noticed that there is a disturbing lack of diverse populations. Medications are primarily tested on young to middle aged white males who are generally healthy. Which means you miss a lot of potential problems. This is done because of COST. Large studies are expensive. You also want healthy people because you don't want them to die. Problem is, this is not the reality in the using population.
More diverse populations in the studies the better. You will more likely get that in India than here. But there will always be problems when you start large scale trials, err, usage (aka, FDA approval). If you want affordable medications anytime soon, that is.....
"Most of the problems listeners cite IRT the music industry center around labels hyperpromoting a few bands at the expense of thousands of others who get no airplay or in-store marketing."
Which sucks if you are the one promoting those bands.
"Here's the thing: Amex is on the buyer's side! They want to keep the buyer as a customer, and they don't want to have to pay the seller if they don't have to!"
All CC companies APPEAR to be on the buyer's side. The second part of your statement strikes at the heart of the matter-their goal is profit. As long as they get it from fees and chargebacks on the merchants or fees on the customers they will happily screw over everyone while spouting PR....
"It took us charging him with fraud and several months of aggravating follow-up for Visa to smarten up and return the balance to the store's account. (Yes, as soon as fraud is claimed the store's account is auto-debited before notice is sent)"
Ah yes, good old credit card companies. Doesn't really pay to be in the mafia. Bad transaction, well let's screw the merchant. Customer hosed us, well, let's increase fees and rates.....
This may be one reason that PayPal doesn't look so bad. They probably screw over their customers less on average.....
Slashdot Mirror
"He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena."
:) Good geophysicists know a LOT of geology (in addition to other subjects).
Hmm, perhaps that says something about geophysicists? If you only look at your computer screen and formulas you tend to miss things. Like reality.
Remember, you don't need to know much geology to be a geowizard, er I mean, geophysicist.
"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters."
Just like any field there are those in it for the knowledge and those in it for the money and fame. Well, the money part I find hard to believe.... Scientists run the gamut from idiot to genius. They do hunt for grants because they want to continue to do science. Getting a grant is NOT easy. Realize that much science is guided by the availability of grants. Grants tend to be most available for the popular areas of research-this is often out of the scientists hands. Much research, such as volcanology, would not be done without public funding.
Anyone who idolizes scientists is a moron.
"Is oil possibly a renewable resource..."
Yes. On a geological time scale.
"Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade?"
This has been determined to a reasonable certainty. It's the effects everyone argues....
"How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?"
Huh?
"but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts."
Scientists do not make public policy, politicians do. Repeat until you grok this. Finally, government is for the common good, which means it spends money on things you don't want and I don't want. Research funding is pathetically small-I would go out on a limb and say it is close to a rounding error in the current budget.
"Plextor *USED* to make the best writers, but their 740 series has a VERY HIGH failure rate, and the 716 is actually a remarked Benq drive!"
Never trust someone who gives incorrect information. The Plextor 740 is a remarked BENQ drive (as is the SONY DRU810a). Of course, the BENQ has more features and is cheaper than the rebadged drive, if you can find it.....
The 716 is a nice drive if cost is no object. The BENQ is the best drive for the money (DW1640).
"It figures. A technological advance that would cut the number of traffic deaths by about 95%...."
You mean COULD. At the present time most people cause no traffic deaths at all. Most people don't cause accidents. Human drivers are a proven, if faulty, method.
An autopilot system has to be better than an excellent driver. It has to be nearly perfect. Why? Well, humans are assumed to be imperfect..... More to the point, if you have never caused any accidents, why exactly would you want to switch to an imperfect autopilot? And everyone starts out perfect.... And considering the dangerous defects some manufacters accept in their vehicles most people rightly think that the autopilot wouldn't be any better.
Ultimately, people accept risks that they believe they can control and don't accept ones they can't and/or don't understand. I don't see that changing. But if you create an almost perfect autopilot system, it WILL be used/nmandated. But we aren't anywhere near that yet. The DARPA course has as much relevence to real life driving as the practical drivers test.
"...the evidence of this is inadmissable because the investigators broke the law to get it."
You are incorrect. As long as they weren't agents of the police, illegally obtained evidence can be used in court. There is no blanket restriction.
This may mean the evidence is less than compelling and that the investigators could be prosecuted. I wouldn't hold my breath.
"What we'd like are sustained controlled fusion reactions which produce more energy than they consume."
:)
And are smaller than a star
"But that's government for you - instead of making one flat rate tax (perhaps as a sales tax on consumables) to pay for themselves - they end up chiseling money from you here and there."
Because that is what people want. Oh, they say they would like a flat rate but their actions dictate otherwise. You know, the people who want breaks for home ownership, being married, having kids, buying food, investing, using/not using certain things (roads, transit, parks, fuel, etc.), etc. In other words, pretty much all of us.
Valuing software is no more difficult than valuing land. Probably easier because the purchase price is known and happens much more often.
So, you didn't have to pay tax on that car or house that you have a loan on? Or are leasing? I mean, after all, you don't own it, the bank does.
Oh, you mean you DID pay taxes on it.....
First, you can sell software.
Second, you really think software doesn't make people money? If it didn't make people money, it wouldn't be used. After all, you can write letters on typewriters, do bookkeeping on paper, and drafting without computers. It adds value.
Software does have value. It is property. Thus it is reasonable to tax it. One could make an argument that it is unfair NOT to tax it. After all, why should a business that uses software to produce products be taxed lower than a company that uses hardware? What is the fundamental difference between a printing press and a computer, printer and the software for instance? Furthermore, the article states that some counties ALREADY tax it. So this is not a change as much as a clarification.
It certainly may not be easy to do. But if you can value property (land) you sure as heck can assign a value to software. The ultimate goal of the assessors office is to insure that property is valued correctly-they don't set tax rates. There may be valid reasons to exempt it-but that is for the legislature to decide.
"A few more points:
* There is a war on, and wars always cost some civil liberties."
That doesn't make it legal. But most important-WE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A WAR. There has been no declaration of war by Congress. Declare an official war and I might be a tad more accepting. Not a vague excuse to expand excutive powers.
"Hate Bush or not, I believe he's doing this to defend the country."
Oh, I believe that he believes he is doing this to defend the country. He is wrong. The greatest threat to this country comes from the executive branch not the terrorists.
"I have seen no real evidence that he's doing it to spy on Democrats or look good in the polls or line his pockets."
So, breaking the law is okay just as long as it doesn't benefit you? And unless you have a security clearance AND are part of the group involved in the intelligence gathering you would have no real evidence.
I have no significant problem with this being used against foreign powers or citizens. Unease, yes. But there is no excuse for its use against US citizens. If you can't get a rubber stamp from a FISA court, retroactively, the intelligence has no value for fighting terrorism. As a matter of fact, we don't lack intelligence-we had enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks. The problem is using the intelligence and the right kind of intelligence (on the ground in foreign countries). If anything it can be argued that this program makes us less safe.
Frankly he sounds like a typical prosecutor. Remember, they only prosecute people they BELIEVE are guilty. This is quite different from the judicial SYSTEM assuming innocence. It isn't the job of a prosecutor (or defense lawyer for that matter) to be impartial-only the judge and jury.
"AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo. He is now trying to investigate transactions made between AIG and the Starr Foundation going back to 1967 in order to find something to justify the ruining of the lives of lots of people at those companies."
He may be an asshole, he may overreach but according to you AIG had to restate earnings for FIVE years. That isn't a minor mistake. In many companies stockholders rightfully flee like rats from a sinking ship when something like this happens. And the fact that you find major accounting violations strongly suggest other lapses....
In short, the primary people responsible for ruining the careers and lives of people at AIG are the current and former management. The AG is only the messenger. Even if he is a vindictive one.....
"And one can buy a great many books about things like Hobbits, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Buddha, and, sure enough, Jesus. Just because there are books does not make a thing true, and no amount of repeating an untrue thing ever will."
:)
What do you mean Hobbits aren't real? I just saw a documentary on them by Peter Jackson!
"ID is not meant to explain how God exists. ID is not even meant to prove that God exists, contrary to what most people think. ID does not mention God, it simply says that there is intellegence inherit in the mechanic of the universe that guides the development of existence."
Of course it is not meant to prove that God exists. That is its premise. It doesn't mention God because otherwise everyone would call it creationism. Hard to get that into a science class.... Hell, it isn't even a theory (as in wild assed guess) much less a scientific one. It's a belief. Heck, it's not even supported by most religions. In other words, it's pretty useless.
"Yes, many aspects of evolution have been shown to be true (like microevolution), but taken as a whole, evolution still does not explain the fundamental question of how we came to be. In fact, this question more properly belongs in the realm of philosophy, but small minded atheists insist on discussing it within the realm of science."
Sorry, but evolution does explain how we came to be. Now if you mean how life started, well, then you would be correct about evolution. But researching how life began is certainly a valid scientific endeavor. Philosophy doesn't have much to add-it's much better for the "why are we here" and "what is our purpose".
"Asking someone to explain why one painting is better visually composed than another requires a large degree of intelligence, but unfortunately, such explanations cannot be objectively rated."
There is a large difference between difficult and impossible. I'm willing to bet this is done all the time in certain majors..... Or are you saying you couldn't objectively rate the explanations showing a badly painted stick figure is not as well composed as the Mona Lisa? One would suspect an intelligent person would realize this.
"I shop online because I can get better deals."
Precisely why they want to tax you-buying online to avoid the tax. On some level I don't have a problem with this. This is the rationale used when trying to tax online/catalog sales.
However, I suspect many people buy online because of BETTER service and selection. Not because of taxes. There are times when I spend more on the product plus shipping than I would have on the product plus taxes. Frankly most local merchants suck in service and selection. Pretty sad when I can get a better shopping experience online than in person. This is the reason that many stores lose sales to online retailers (or for that matter larger retailers)-if your service doesn't make up for your prices people WILL go elsewhere when they have the opportunity.
To put it another way, I will pay more for good service online or off, but if I am going to get crappy service I will go for the cheapest price online or off....
"I mean asking about the system itself, and whether or not it's the best way to do things."
And that would be a worthless question. Of course it isn't. But any "simple" tax system would last only slightly longer than it would take the ink to dry on the legislation.
Because WE WANT social engineering. Remember that ALL deductions/exemptions are loopholes. What do low capital gains taxes, low inheritance taxes, IRA deductions, education credits, ethanol tax credits and mortgage deductions have in common? They are loopholes. Just like exempting food from sales tax.
We could create a simpler tax code. But it wouldn't stay simple for long. Not to mention the outcry-look at the proposed change to home ownership deductions that would affect relatively few people. Politicians don't lose elections over the current tax code but they could over the changes.....
Someone who didn't understand the definition of trust? :)
"Isn't this exactly right? As a war-time Commander-in-Chief, the President has the duty to do everything possible to protect US citizens from the enemy. Of course, a few key definitions have been re-defined by this Administration in recent years:"
One little problem. We are not at war. Of course that might go to your redefinition of war.... If Congress had declared war I could accept (maybe not stomach) his explanation.
"While I do like the idea of getting soldiers out of action, I don't expect that giving them all double pneumonia is really a good way to do it."
As temperature changes don't cause bacterial or viral illnesses, I don't see the problem.
I certainly wonder why they just don't put AC in the vehicles that can handle the load. Keep the temperatures reasonable and you will stay acclimated. No other problems. It's not like the enemy is homing in on the heat signatures....
"Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument."
Oh, I see. All these imperfections in things too incredibly complex to have evolved is just due to an all powerful God who is just really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean.... Saying it was good implies a tad bit more than adequate.... Sorry, but if you believe that your diety can create the universe that argument just doesn't cut it.
If creation wasn't perfect that strongly implies God isn't. That God has weaknesses. Perhaps God really isn't all that powerful. You see the logical progression here? That's the problem with using the bible as anything more than a guide. At best it is a book "inspired by actual events".
"The big downside is that India is not an ethnically diverse country. Thus, the results are not necessarily transferrable."
Have you ever LOOKED at PI sheets for medications or the compositions of study groups US and Europe? Obviously not or you would have noticed that there is a disturbing lack of diverse populations. Medications are primarily tested on young to middle aged white males who are generally healthy. Which means you miss a lot of potential problems. This is done because of COST. Large studies are expensive. You also want healthy people because you don't want them to die. Problem is, this is not the reality in the using population.
More diverse populations in the studies the better. You will more likely get that in India than here. But there will always be problems when you start large scale trials, err, usage (aka, FDA approval). If you want affordable medications anytime soon, that is.....
"Most of the problems listeners cite IRT the music industry center around labels hyperpromoting a few bands at the expense of thousands of others who get no airplay or in-store marketing."
Which sucks if you are the one promoting those bands.
Of course, everyone else couldn't care less.....
"Here's the thing: Amex is on the buyer's side! They want to keep the buyer as a customer, and they don't want to have to pay the seller if they don't have to!"
All CC companies APPEAR to be on the buyer's side. The second part of your statement strikes at the heart of the matter-their goal is profit. As long as they get it from fees and chargebacks on the merchants or fees on the customers they will happily screw over everyone while spouting PR....
"It took us charging him with fraud and several months of aggravating follow-up for Visa to smarten up and return the balance to the store's account. (Yes, as soon as fraud is claimed the store's account is auto-debited before notice is sent)"
Ah yes, good old credit card companies. Doesn't really pay to be in the mafia. Bad transaction, well let's screw the merchant. Customer hosed us, well, let's increase fees and rates.....
This may be one reason that PayPal doesn't look so bad. They probably screw over their customers less on average.....
"You need to recheck again your facts."
The first rule of thumb is to check your own facts before you write such a statement.
Steroids are NOT illegal. Banned in certain sports and may not be legally available over the counter. But in the US they are LEGAL to presribe.