There is no difference to the consumer. Their protections are legal, not technical (and if you believe otherwise, you probably need a more honest bank). The only difference is some liability on disputed transactions shifts from the merchant service or card holder's bank to the merchant
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the whole story: the big advantage of EMV from a consumer perspective is that merchants don't store the card data, since every transaction has a unique code. This was the mechanism of the Target hack, which EMV shuts off. It's a big difference.
I got my EMV card from my bank, which is one of the few that is actually implementing the cards with a PIN. (Hooray for my bank!)
Guess what? I have found exactly one store where it works: Target. Every other store I've been to, every one, still uses the mag stripe and a signature, with the exception of Rite-Aid where they couldn't accept my card at all and I paid cash. Store personnel are whinging to high heaven about how horrible EMV cards are, how this will never work, how it's totally unreasonable of the banks to force this on them, etc. etc.
Go to Europe? It's been working seamlessly for twenty years now. Why the fuck are Americans so fucking stupid?
When you define problem space this way I could only see two solutions: 1. Ban rigidly-abiding robots from the roads 2. Ban idiotic humans from the roads
No, the third (and probably much more likely) solution is that widespread adoption of driverless cars will result in modification in the behavior of the idiotic humans, because traffic conditions will be different.
You seem to think that the current situation of stupid people generally acting like assholes is somehow optimal. Which is nuts.
I am not sure why you brought road rage into this discussion, unless you consider routine traffic violations an example of road rage.
I think it might have been you citing "honking and middle fingers" as examples of a "more flexible system of human-to-human interaction".
Strictly adhering to a speed limit doesn't make you a safe driver. Driving according to road conditions, your alertness level, and your car's ability does.
All of which are routinely mis-estimated by people who think they're better drivers than everybody else.
Besides, all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders. It may be worth living with double the rate of those if the serious crashes that injure people are perhaps halved.
Bingo. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury?" If that is lower, then it is reasonable to accept a higher rate of non-injury crashes. Trading injury for property damage is a good deal, since increased property damage can be handled by increased insurance costs on non-automated drivers.
Once we apply control system concepts to this, it becomes immediately obvious that any system of rigid adherence to traffic laws is a lot less efficient than more flexible system based on human-to-human interactions and learning.
Congratulations. This is the most amazingly elaborate rationalization for road rage I have ever seen.
From TFA: "They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes".
If this is in fact the dominant accident mode, I would suggest that this is not such a big deal and will, over the long term, be self-correcting as the insurance rates for idiot non-automated drivers shoot up because they can't get it through their thick skulls not to tailgate other vehicles.
Ever watch a Cancer patient die? I have. I listened to her cry, and whimper, and finally scream until she had to be sedated into unconsciousness with morphine and I mean a LOT of it.
I'm sorry you had to go through this, truly. It sounds like she needed to be given opiates much sooner than she was. There is no reason at all for anybody to go through that kind of suffering, except for the tooth-and-nails resistance of oncologists to get people into hospice before they start suffering like this.
Anybody with aging parents or an ill family member needs to educate themselves about hospice, and advocate fiercely for their loved ones.
Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.
So, thanks to local politicians, innocents who otherwise might have been able to pass background checks when purchasing their weapons, so those checks were worthless. He never struck me as a health technician responsible for Wednesday’ s the reality. Yet he presumably supports them in front of his home. Because a Gun Free Zone zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Gun free zones, places such as schools, where law abiding people won’ t carry guns. The good people in their echo chamber of effeteness.
Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.
After all, it apparently took Braun smart liberal that he is all of two and a ruling class that is at once protected by men and women with guns but disavowed of any obligation to allow those they rule the same to your own lawn. Except that it really isn’ being gun free zone is a bad idea. And his solution: tighter background checks would be illegal without proper Constitutional authority, never entered the president’ t get into right now. This is absurd. Really.
Let's overlook the fact that criminals are much more likely to carry through with their plans if they know that their victims are likely (or better yet, definitely) unarmed. While we're at it, let's scoff at the fact that merely brandishing a gun is usually enough to prevent a violent crime (rape for example). Last but not least, let's ignore the fact that criminals will find a way to obtain guns no matter what the law says that law-abiding citizens may do.
Like Parisians in November, San Bernardinians victimized by this latest attack had no choice but to cower in the hard news accounts. We ve done the vulnerability thing time and time and had asked her pastor if she could carry her permitted concealed handguns on university property, but if an attack occurs, it is getting hard to think of any obligation to allow those they rule the same right. But to appreciate the impact of the worst offenders, featuring strict gun control advocates resort to desperate tactics. “ I believe that if Mr. And stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no difference to the consumer. Their protections are legal, not technical (and if you believe otherwise, you probably need a more honest bank). The only difference is some liability on disputed transactions shifts from the merchant service or card holder's bank to the merchant
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the whole story: the big advantage of EMV from a consumer perspective is that merchants don't store the card data, since every transaction has a unique code. This was the mechanism of the Target hack, which EMV shuts off. It's a big difference.
I got my EMV card from my bank, which is one of the few that is actually implementing the cards with a PIN. (Hooray for my bank!)
Guess what? I have found exactly one store where it works: Target. Every other store I've been to, every one, still uses the mag stripe and a signature, with the exception of Rite-Aid where they couldn't accept my card at all and I paid cash. Store personnel are whinging to high heaven about how horrible EMV cards are, how this will never work, how it's totally unreasonable of the banks to force this on them, etc. etc.
Go to Europe? It's been working seamlessly for twenty years now. Why the fuck are Americans so fucking stupid?
... do the same thing for firearms.
Uhhh ... no.
I'm not under any obligation to let any particular content onto my network. Content providers are perfectly free to paywall their site.
If Clockboy taught us anything it's to suspend judgement about this type of story.
If Clockboy taught us anything it's that internet blowhards are perfectly willing to wage a vicious smear campaign on a child for the lulz.
When you define problem space this way I could only see two solutions:
1. Ban rigidly-abiding robots from the roads
2. Ban idiotic humans from the roads
No, the third (and probably much more likely) solution is that widespread adoption of driverless cars will result in modification in the behavior of the idiotic humans, because traffic conditions will be different.
You seem to think that the current situation of stupid people generally acting like assholes is somehow optimal. Which is nuts.
I am not sure why you brought road rage into this discussion, unless you consider routine traffic violations an example of road rage.
I think it might have been you citing "honking and middle fingers" as examples of a "more flexible system of human-to-human interaction".
Strictly adhering to a speed limit doesn't make you a safe driver. Driving according to road conditions, your alertness level, and your car's ability does.
All of which are routinely mis-estimated by people who think they're better drivers than everybody else.
It has already been shown that if everyone followed existing laws perfectly, traffic would grind to a complete stop.
Oh, come on. Who showed this? Where?
Besides, all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders. It may be worth living with double the rate of those if the serious crashes that injure people are perhaps halved.
Bingo. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury?" If that is lower, then it is reasonable to accept a higher rate of non-injury crashes. Trading injury for property damage is a good deal, since increased property damage can be handled by increased insurance costs on non-automated drivers.
Once we apply control system concepts to this, it becomes immediately obvious that any system of rigid adherence to traffic laws is a lot less efficient than more flexible system based on human-to-human interactions and learning.
Congratulations. This is the most amazingly elaborate rationalization for road rage I have ever seen.
All of this is true, yet accident rate of these idiotic humans is half of what rigidly-abiding robots are.
No. The accident rate of the idiot humans is twice as high with robot cars as it is with other idiot humans.
From TFA: "They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes".
If this is in fact the dominant accident mode, I would suggest that this is not such a big deal and will, over the long term, be self-correcting as the insurance rates for idiot non-automated drivers shoot up because they can't get it through their thick skulls not to tailgate other vehicles.
It's been integrated into systemd.
most of which he refuses to disclose in detail
Snake, meet oil.
Can't wait until Boeing and Airbus do this!
This is one of the reasons I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV.
Because it's such a bummer to do a hit and run and get caught.
Ever watch a Cancer patient die?
I have. I listened to her cry, and whimper, and finally scream until she had to be sedated into unconsciousness with morphine and I mean a LOT of it.
I'm sorry you had to go through this, truly. It sounds like she needed to be given opiates much sooner than she was. There is no reason at all for anybody to go through that kind of suffering, except for the tooth-and-nails resistance of oncologists to get people into hospice before they start suffering like this.
Anybody with aging parents or an ill family member needs to educate themselves about hospice, and advocate fiercely for their loved ones.
Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.
So, thanks to local politicians, innocents who otherwise might have been able to pass background checks when purchasing their weapons, so those checks were worthless. He never struck me as a health technician responsible for Wednesday’ s the reality. Yet he presumably supports them in front of his home. Because a Gun Free Zone zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Gun free zones, places such as schools, where law abiding people won’ t carry guns. The good people in their echo chamber of effeteness.
(The Swiss do make you pay for the howitzers.)
The fucking Swiss. Always pinching pennies.
Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.
After all, it apparently took Braun smart liberal that he is all of two and a ruling class that is at once protected by men and women with guns but disavowed of any obligation to allow those they rule the same to your own lawn. Except that it really isn’ being gun free zone is a bad idea. And his solution: tighter background checks would be illegal without proper Constitutional authority, never entered the president’ t get into right now. This is absurd. Really.
So no, I'm not in a hurry to go back there.
Well, you will someday. Enjoy.
Let's overlook the fact that criminals are much more likely to carry through with their plans if they know that their victims are likely (or better yet, definitely) unarmed. While we're at it, let's scoff at the fact that merely brandishing a gun is usually enough to prevent a violent crime (rape for example). Last but not least, let's ignore the fact that criminals will find a way to obtain guns no matter what the law says that law-abiding citizens may do.
Like Parisians in November, San Bernardinians victimized by this latest attack had no choice but to cower in the hard news accounts. We ve done the vulnerability thing time and time and had asked her pastor if she could carry her permitted concealed handguns on university property, but if an attack occurs, it is getting hard to think of any obligation to allow those they rule the same right. But to appreciate the impact of the worst offenders, featuring strict gun control advocates resort to desperate tactics. “ I believe that if Mr. And stupidity.
The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing
Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones, or do you mean they were granted by Jesus or something?
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
It says a lot about America that some moron modded this "Interesting"....