There is no reason to upgrade to chip cards except to benefit the card cartels.
Do you realize that most of the rest of the world, including places like Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, has been using this since 2005? Hell, France was doing it in 1992. The only reason the US switched at all is because credit card fraud had finally reached the tipping point around 2012 when banks finally figured out that it was going to be cheaper to switch everything than it would to cover the increasing cost of the fraud.
Most card fraud occurs in the United States. In fact, a 2015 research note from Barclays stated that the U.S. is responsible for 47 percent of the world’s card fraud despite only accounting for 24 percent of total worldwide card volume.
The high level of debit and credit card fraud in the United States also impacts other countries. Among U.K.-issued cards in 2015, 35 percent of fraud-related losses occurred in the United States, compared to 10 percent in France and Australia, 9 percent in Canada and 6 percent in Germany.
Cross-border fraud occurs when criminals use a consumer's credit or debit card data in one country to make fraudulent transactions in another country. In 2014, 47 percent of fraudulent cross-border transactions on U.K. credit cards took place in the United States.
U.S. credit card fraud is on the rise, too. About 31.8 million U.S. consumers had their credit cards breached in 2014, more than three times the number affected in 2013.
That fraud isn't cheap. Nearly 90 percent of card breach victims in 2014 received replacement credit cards, costing issuers as much as $12.75 per card.
Most experts believe that the reason the U.S. has a disproportionately high amount of fraud is because it has been slow to adopt EMV, a global standard in which credit cards carry computer chips that cut down on counterfeiting by dynamically authenticating card transactions. Countries that have deployed EMV have enjoyed a decrease in counterfeit fraud as a result -- 70 percent in the U.K., for example, between 2005 and 2013.
Wow, thanks so much for the sage advice. And here I was all ready to cast my vote for either Clinton or Trump.
Neither of them deserve to be president. Both of them deserve to be attacked, frankly. The point is that this story is not about Trump, no matter how much the "journalists" want to try to twist it.
but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump?
I have a question for you - when the list of the Clinton Foundation donors gets leaked online, why are you talking about unanswered questions for Trump? Isn't this story about Clinton? Because I can think of at least one question for Clinton - how did the database of donors for The Clinton Foundation get stolen? Where and how was it being stored? Those are a couple unanswered questions right off the top of my head, maybe you can think of some more.
It seems like the summary kind of takes this track:
The Clinton Foundation donor database got leaked. Russia has been trying to subvert the US political process! Nearly half of the US states have had their voting systems attacked! (but we don't know if the Russians did that, and we don't even know if it's connected to the Clinton Foundation database leak) There are "unanswered questions" for Donald Trump. Four Congressmen want Trump investigated by the FBI.
That seems like a weird direction to head off into when this is a story about the Clinton Foundation donor database getting stolen and leaked. It's almost like that small collection of facts are unrelated to each other.
So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups?
Whoa, hey there buddy, no one said that. No, that's not what they said, they said that there are unanswered questions. What are the questions? That's not important. How many are there? The amount of unanswered questions can be described as "a number", as opposed to "a fish" or "a tree". I don't know why you have to jump to all of these inflammatory conclusions like Trump is running these hacker groups, all anyone is saying is that there is a certain quantity of questions, where the quantity is an integer greater than or equal to 0, and the questions have not been answered.
So, anyway, since you brought it up, why do you think that Trump is running these hacker groups? I'm just asking questions.
Did Newsweek publish any other stories that day (or that week)?
No, the only thing that Newsweek published all week was a story about Trump. Not many people know this, but Newsweek is down to 1 employee who is both the journalist and webmaster.
Is there a definite correlation between that publishing of that story and the DDOS?
There is definitely a correlation between the two. They happened on the same day. That's a correlation. You could even say that Newsweek gets hit by DOS attacks any day they post a piece by Kurt Eichenwald about Trump breaking the Cuban embargo.
I know, it's unfortunate that most leagues haven't figured out how to give people what they want - live games on demand without a TV subscription. The NFL will let me watch all 256 games per season, for example, but they aren't live. In fact I think I see them a week late, what's the point?
Sportsdevil is the plugin I use the most, I think some people use Castaway for sports also. The major downside is that you can't quickly switch between games and sometimes the streams aren't very reliable where you'll have to keep looking for one (and, like some other plugins for Kodi, a lot of links just don't work at all, but you'll learn which ones have what you want). I'll be happy to start paying again once they offer what I'm looking for, but in the meantime this works for me. If you do some searching for Kodi in general, and Sportsdevil in particular, you'll find instructions for setup and things like that.
Oh, is that what Bernie thinks? The numbers that I see are that people who earn less than $250k have no change in their taxes, and that people who earn more than that have several new brackets they would fall into. There's a small case where people making between $464,851 to $499,999 would actually see their taxes fall by a couple percent, otherwise the new tax brackets for the highest earners ($10 million or more) would go from 39.6% to 52%. If you also include the proposed 2.2% medicare flat tax, then that raises everyone's taxes by 2.2% more and brings the highest earners to 54.2%.
So anyway, where is your 90% number coming from? I'm curious about your source for that one.
Haha, no I'm not, I'm kidding, I know you're full of shit and just wanted to call you on it.
I got tired of waiting for the NFL to figure out how to do things right, and now they get none of my money at all. I still watch whatever game I want to watch, they just don't get a cut. If they decide to come out with a service where I can watch any game that I want to watch live without a TV subscription, then they can get my money back if the price is right, but I was finished with waiting for the NFL to get their heads out of their asses before I dropped my TV subscription. I dropped it and then figured out what I was going to do about football. The major downside of the solution I've found is that I can't quickly switch between games, but that's the price I pay for not having to spend $100 per month on a bunch of things that I never watch.
If you want to force people to do things they don't want to do because you think it's "right", then at least I can say you're living in the correct state.
Did you forget what a fucking bona-fide occupational qualifier is, sir?
I can't say that I've ever fucking heard of a fucking bona-fide occupational qualifier, but it sounds to me that if the fucking job description is "someone who I think looks like this fucking character", then they can sort of hire whoever they fucking want. That's the magic of the fucking movies and all that, they even have a fucking makeup and wardrobe department. Then again, I'm not a fucking employment attorney, and I don't live in fucking California, so maybe I'm fucking wrong. I'm just glad that my fucking taxes aren't going towards fucking things like making sure that every fucking actor is being hired even when the people making the fucking movie don't want to hire that fucking actor.
They say it can transport about 100 tons. That's not much for a colonization effort. The Mayflower that transported the pilgrims to America was rated at about 180 tons.
Yeah I can't imagine how they're going to be able to be successful, what with the requirement that they can only carry supplies that were available in the early 1600s.
In all seriousness though, I would expect that the first several ships are going to be unmanned supply ships, and that the people would make the journey only when there are sufficient supplies and they've had repeated success landing the things on Mars. If they have 500 tons of supplies from the 21st century waiting on the surface then I'm sure they can be better stocked than the Mayflower passengers.
Problem is, many actors get discriminated against in their 30s, considered too old.
So, why exactly is that a problem? Who gives a shit if they want someone in their 20s to play a character in their 30s? Again, are you going to force them to hire actors that they don't want to hire? Here, let me just paste my entire comment that you ignored because you didn't like which part I quoted.
So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.
So, why exactly does the government of California feel that they need to spend their time dictating rules about actors ages? Because movie studios hire younger actors to play older characters? Boo frickin' hoo. If that's what people want to see, why wouldn't they do that? Is it also a problem that they hire older actors to play younger characters? Do you think the California government needs to spend time drafting and enacting and enforcing legislation to make sure that actors get hired to play characters close to their own age? Is that considered a good use of government in the bubble in which you live?
Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing if you're downloading at 1 MB/s or 1 GB/s.
That's not exactly true. The equipment is still using power regardless of whether or not it's transmitting anything. They could charge people flat rates based on rough estimates of how many users it would take sending "normal" (however that gets estimated) data to fill the equipment. If 1,000 users could each transmit at 1mbps through their equipment before it reaches capacity, then they could charge each user 1/500th of the cost of the electricity that equipment uses, for example. They would make a profit when a lot of people are using their network, but would lose a little if it's well below capacity. In reality they want to charge many times that, though. It seems like it's almost to the point where any individual user could pay for all of the power for the equipment they're using.
I remember back when cell phone companies charged a price per text message, the calculations were done to show that it cost more to send 1MB of SMS data than it did to get the same amount of data from the Hubble telescope. ISPs and cell carriers will always want to charge as much as people are willing to pay, I don't think any of them tries to come up with a pricing scheme were people only pay for what they're actually using (as in, what it costs the carrier) plus a little extra for profit.
If I claimed that I always followed every law then I would be a liar.
If you don't like Joe, we'll take him.
Good, please do. Write to him and let him know where he should move his campaign to. And take his legal fees also.
All he does is enforce the laws that the Federal government won't.
Turns out that's not actually *all* he does. He also uses his power to intimidate his political opponents, hires private investigators (on the public's dime, of course) to dig up dirt on his political opponents, hires family members for big prison contracts, and yeah, openly violates court rulings that specifically block him from certain actions, like target Mexicans because they're Mexican. He's a wanna-be celebrity sheriff more concerned with a photo opportunity than doing his job. Go ahead and figure out how large the backlog for processing rape cases is right now. Instead of processing rape cases he would rather investigate Obama's birth certificate. If you want him, take him.
Unless you've got star power behind you, you're pretty much fucked, and might as well get a job being a gaffer or boom operator if you want to stay anywhere in the field, or relegate yourself to TV roles.
So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.
Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.
Luxury! Here in Arizona we have a sheriff who openly violates court rulings, gets hit with contempt of court, and our lawmakers still approve $50 million or so of taxpayer money to fight his legal battles.
skipping the dealer allows the manufacturer to set the price. and they would never fix the price with a defacto monopoly, right?
Haha, what? You're whining about a manufacturer selling their product for whatever price they want to sell it at? Tesla "fixing the price" on their own products that they make and sell themselves, that's funny. How does a single company "fix" the price? They don't "fix" the price, they set the price, that's the price, anyone can buy it at that price. You might as well whine about McDonald's "fixing" the price on a Big Mac because they cost the same anywhere you buy them.
Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on electric cars, and they don't have a monopoly on cars. If they want to set the price of their cars at $100,000, fine, they won't get a ton of sales but if they make a profit then why do you care? If they want to compete with other car manufacturers then they can lower the price, or they can design another model which costs less to produce so that they can reach a bigger market and still make a profit. Guess what Tesla decided to do with the Model 3. Go ahead, guess.
Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on anything except Tesla cars, and you don't have some right to buy a Tesla car for $10k if they don't want to sell them for that much. Don't bitch and moan about old laws that were bought and paid for that shouldn't exist any more. The car market at this point is too big and has too many competitors for price fixing, because if that happens there is a major opportunity and incentive for one of those many competitors to undercut everyone else and make huge sales.
In fact, we achieved a manned trip with a successful return less than 1 lifetime after we first achieved controlled, powered flight.
I think about that a lot, I think it's pretty crazy that humans have had some form of civilization for tens of thousands of years, and we only learned how to build a machine capable of controlled powered flight just over 100 years ago, and it was only a little more than 50 years after that when we put people on the moon. It took so long to get the understanding and technology needed for the first steps, and after that it just took off (literally!). It's pretty amazing. It's also pretty amazing that there are people out there who think we know everything by now.
When people say FTL isn't possible, time travel isn't possible, etc. they do so because they know what they're talking about.
Just like everyone thought that Newton knew what he was talking about, until Einstein came along. We're always going to have people who are capable of thinking about things in a way that no one ever has, and those people are going to once again figure something out that no one else had before. Maybe one of those things is going to concern moving from one place to another in less time than would be possible if you actually traveled that entire linear distance.
I'm not going to try and argue with you whether or not any human today knows how to travel large distances through space quickly, but if you're going to try to argue that the things that we know today are never going to change then I think your entire premise is stupid and ignorant of history. The amount of things that we don't know about the universe is staggering. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Your keen eye can look at those movie props and tell that they use rounds containing "analog gunpowder", huh? Can you tell from the pixels?
There is no reason to upgrade to chip cards except to benefit the card cartels.
Do you realize that most of the rest of the world, including places like Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, has been using this since 2005? Hell, France was doing it in 1992. The only reason the US switched at all is because credit card fraud had finally reached the tipping point around 2012 when banks finally figured out that it was going to be cheaper to switch everything than it would to cover the increasing cost of the fraud.
Here you go:
Most card fraud occurs in the United States. In fact, a 2015 research note from Barclays stated that the U.S. is responsible for 47 percent of the world’s card fraud despite only accounting for 24 percent of total worldwide card volume.
The high level of debit and credit card fraud in the United States also impacts other countries. Among U.K.-issued cards in 2015, 35 percent of fraud-related losses occurred in the United States, compared to 10 percent in France and Australia, 9 percent in Canada and 6 percent in Germany.
Cross-border fraud occurs when criminals use a consumer's credit or debit card data in one country to make fraudulent transactions in another country. In 2014, 47 percent of fraudulent cross-border transactions on U.K. credit cards took place in the United States.
U.S. credit card fraud is on the rise, too. About 31.8 million U.S. consumers had their credit cards breached in 2014, more than three times the number affected in 2013.
That fraud isn't cheap. Nearly 90 percent of card breach victims in 2014 received replacement credit cards, costing issuers as much as $12.75 per card.
Most experts believe that the reason the U.S. has a disproportionately high amount of fraud is because it has been slow to adopt EMV, a global standard in which credit cards carry computer chips that cut down on counterfeiting by dynamically authenticating card transactions. Countries that have deployed EMV have enjoyed a decrease in counterfeit fraud as a result -- 70 percent in the U.K., for example, between 2005 and 2013.
Wow, thanks so much for the sage advice. And here I was all ready to cast my vote for either Clinton or Trump.
Neither of them deserve to be president. Both of them deserve to be attacked, frankly. The point is that this story is not about Trump, no matter how much the "journalists" want to try to twist it.
but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump?
I have a question for you - when the list of the Clinton Foundation donors gets leaked online, why are you talking about unanswered questions for Trump? Isn't this story about Clinton? Because I can think of at least one question for Clinton - how did the database of donors for The Clinton Foundation get stolen? Where and how was it being stored? Those are a couple unanswered questions right off the top of my head, maybe you can think of some more.
It seems like the summary kind of takes this track:
The Clinton Foundation donor database got leaked.
Russia has been trying to subvert the US political process!
Nearly half of the US states have had their voting systems attacked! (but we don't know if the Russians did that, and we don't even know if it's connected to the Clinton Foundation database leak)
There are "unanswered questions" for Donald Trump.
Four Congressmen want Trump investigated by the FBI.
That seems like a weird direction to head off into when this is a story about the Clinton Foundation donor database getting stolen and leaked. It's almost like that small collection of facts are unrelated to each other.
So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups?
Whoa, hey there buddy, no one said that. No, that's not what they said, they said that there are unanswered questions. What are the questions? That's not important. How many are there? The amount of unanswered questions can be described as "a number", as opposed to "a fish" or "a tree". I don't know why you have to jump to all of these inflammatory conclusions like Trump is running these hacker groups, all anyone is saying is that there is a certain quantity of questions, where the quantity is an integer greater than or equal to 0, and the questions have not been answered.
So, anyway, since you brought it up, why do you think that Trump is running these hacker groups? I'm just asking questions.
I think a better use of this botnet would be to flood the manufacturers' websites. Maybe then they'll start caring about security.
Did Newsweek publish any other stories that day (or that week)?
No, the only thing that Newsweek published all week was a story about Trump. Not many people know this, but Newsweek is down to 1 employee who is both the journalist and webmaster.
Is there a definite correlation between that publishing of that story and the DDOS?
There is definitely a correlation between the two. They happened on the same day. That's a correlation. You could even say that Newsweek gets hit by DOS attacks any day they post a piece by Kurt Eichenwald about Trump breaking the Cuban embargo.
What if Putin is counting on that to make sure Hillary wins?
ooooooooh
I know, it's unfortunate that most leagues haven't figured out how to give people what they want - live games on demand without a TV subscription. The NFL will let me watch all 256 games per season, for example, but they aren't live. In fact I think I see them a week late, what's the point?
Sportsdevil is the plugin I use the most, I think some people use Castaway for sports also. The major downside is that you can't quickly switch between games and sometimes the streams aren't very reliable where you'll have to keep looking for one (and, like some other plugins for Kodi, a lot of links just don't work at all, but you'll learn which ones have what you want). I'll be happy to start paying again once they offer what I'm looking for, but in the meantime this works for me. If you do some searching for Kodi in general, and Sportsdevil in particular, you'll find instructions for setup and things like that.
Oh, is that what Bernie thinks? The numbers that I see are that people who earn less than $250k have no change in their taxes, and that people who earn more than that have several new brackets they would fall into. There's a small case where people making between $464,851 to $499,999 would actually see their taxes fall by a couple percent, otherwise the new tax brackets for the highest earners ($10 million or more) would go from 39.6% to 52%. If you also include the proposed 2.2% medicare flat tax, then that raises everyone's taxes by 2.2% more and brings the highest earners to 54.2%.
So anyway, where is your 90% number coming from? I'm curious about your source for that one.
Haha, no I'm not, I'm kidding, I know you're full of shit and just wanted to call you on it.
But...football (sigh).
Look into Kodi and something like Sportsdevil.
I got tired of waiting for the NFL to figure out how to do things right, and now they get none of my money at all. I still watch whatever game I want to watch, they just don't get a cut. If they decide to come out with a service where I can watch any game that I want to watch live without a TV subscription, then they can get my money back if the price is right, but I was finished with waiting for the NFL to get their heads out of their asses before I dropped my TV subscription. I dropped it and then figured out what I was going to do about football. The major downside of the solution I've found is that I can't quickly switch between games, but that's the price I pay for not having to spend $100 per month on a bunch of things that I never watch.
If you want to force people to do things they don't want to do because you think it's "right", then at least I can say you're living in the correct state.
Did you forget what a fucking bona-fide occupational qualifier is, sir?
I can't say that I've ever fucking heard of a fucking bona-fide occupational qualifier, but it sounds to me that if the fucking job description is "someone who I think looks like this fucking character", then they can sort of hire whoever they fucking want. That's the magic of the fucking movies and all that, they even have a fucking makeup and wardrobe department. Then again, I'm not a fucking employment attorney, and I don't live in fucking California, so maybe I'm fucking wrong. I'm just glad that my fucking taxes aren't going towards fucking things like making sure that every fucking actor is being hired even when the people making the fucking movie don't want to hire that fucking actor.
They say it can transport about 100 tons. That's not much for a colonization effort. The Mayflower that transported the pilgrims to America was rated at about 180 tons.
Yeah I can't imagine how they're going to be able to be successful, what with the requirement that they can only carry supplies that were available in the early 1600s.
In all seriousness though, I would expect that the first several ships are going to be unmanned supply ships, and that the people would make the journey only when there are sufficient supplies and they've had repeated success landing the things on Mars. If they have 500 tons of supplies from the 21st century waiting on the surface then I'm sure they can be better stocked than the Mayflower passengers.
No, the solution here is to allow subscribers of an employment database
"An employment database?" I think that the owners of IMDB would dispute your classification of their service.
Good lord. Way to miss the point. Ok then...
Problem is, many actors get discriminated against in their 30s, considered too old.
So, why exactly is that a problem? Who gives a shit if they want someone in their 20s to play a character in their 30s? Again, are you going to force them to hire actors that they don't want to hire? Here, let me just paste my entire comment that you ignored because you didn't like which part I quoted.
So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.
So, why exactly does the government of California feel that they need to spend their time dictating rules about actors ages? Because movie studios hire younger actors to play older characters? Boo frickin' hoo. If that's what people want to see, why wouldn't they do that? Is it also a problem that they hire older actors to play younger characters? Do you think the California government needs to spend time drafting and enacting and enforcing legislation to make sure that actors get hired to play characters close to their own age? Is that considered a good use of government in the bubble in which you live?
Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing if you're downloading at 1 MB/s or 1 GB/s.
That's not exactly true. The equipment is still using power regardless of whether or not it's transmitting anything. They could charge people flat rates based on rough estimates of how many users it would take sending "normal" (however that gets estimated) data to fill the equipment. If 1,000 users could each transmit at 1mbps through their equipment before it reaches capacity, then they could charge each user 1/500th of the cost of the electricity that equipment uses, for example. They would make a profit when a lot of people are using their network, but would lose a little if it's well below capacity. In reality they want to charge many times that, though. It seems like it's almost to the point where any individual user could pay for all of the power for the equipment they're using.
I remember back when cell phone companies charged a price per text message, the calculations were done to show that it cost more to send 1MB of SMS data than it did to get the same amount of data from the Hubble telescope. ISPs and cell carriers will always want to charge as much as people are willing to pay, I don't think any of them tries to come up with a pricing scheme were people only pay for what they're actually using (as in, what it costs the carrier) plus a little extra for profit.
I love Oreos, but I stopped eating them when I realized that the delicious white filling was whipped lard and sugar.
Just out of curiosity, which health food did you think composed the filling?
You don't deliberately disobey federal court orders and get off with the taxpayers paying the fines.
Well, *I* don't, but I'm not a corrupt sheriff.
If I claimed that I always followed every law then I would be a liar.
If you don't like Joe, we'll take him.
Good, please do. Write to him and let him know where he should move his campaign to. And take his legal fees also.
All he does is enforce the laws that the Federal government won't.
Turns out that's not actually *all* he does. He also uses his power to intimidate his political opponents, hires private investigators (on the public's dime, of course) to dig up dirt on his political opponents, hires family members for big prison contracts, and yeah, openly violates court rulings that specifically block him from certain actions, like target Mexicans because they're Mexican. He's a wanna-be celebrity sheriff more concerned with a photo opportunity than doing his job. Go ahead and figure out how large the backlog for processing rape cases is right now. Instead of processing rape cases he would rather investigate Obama's birth certificate. If you want him, take him.
"Counter" is not a noun.
This is false. I have counters in my kitchen and bathrooms.
Unless you've got star power behind you, you're pretty much fucked, and might as well get a job being a gaffer or boom operator if you want to stay anywhere in the field, or relegate yourself to TV roles.
So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.
Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.
Luxury! Here in Arizona we have a sheriff who openly violates court rulings, gets hit with contempt of court, and our lawmakers still approve $50 million or so of taxpayer money to fight his legal battles.
skipping the dealer allows the manufacturer to set the price. and they would never fix the price with a defacto monopoly, right?
Haha, what? You're whining about a manufacturer selling their product for whatever price they want to sell it at? Tesla "fixing the price" on their own products that they make and sell themselves, that's funny. How does a single company "fix" the price? They don't "fix" the price, they set the price, that's the price, anyone can buy it at that price. You might as well whine about McDonald's "fixing" the price on a Big Mac because they cost the same anywhere you buy them.
Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on electric cars, and they don't have a monopoly on cars. If they want to set the price of their cars at $100,000, fine, they won't get a ton of sales but if they make a profit then why do you care? If they want to compete with other car manufacturers then they can lower the price, or they can design another model which costs less to produce so that they can reach a bigger market and still make a profit. Guess what Tesla decided to do with the Model 3. Go ahead, guess.
Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on anything except Tesla cars, and you don't have some right to buy a Tesla car for $10k if they don't want to sell them for that much. Don't bitch and moan about old laws that were bought and paid for that shouldn't exist any more. The car market at this point is too big and has too many competitors for price fixing, because if that happens there is a major opportunity and incentive for one of those many competitors to undercut everyone else and make huge sales.
In fact, we achieved a manned trip with a successful return less than 1 lifetime after we first achieved controlled, powered flight.
I think about that a lot, I think it's pretty crazy that humans have had some form of civilization for tens of thousands of years, and we only learned how to build a machine capable of controlled powered flight just over 100 years ago, and it was only a little more than 50 years after that when we put people on the moon. It took so long to get the understanding and technology needed for the first steps, and after that it just took off (literally!). It's pretty amazing. It's also pretty amazing that there are people out there who think we know everything by now.
When people say FTL isn't possible, time travel isn't possible, etc. they do so because they know what they're talking about.
Just like everyone thought that Newton knew what he was talking about, until Einstein came along. We're always going to have people who are capable of thinking about things in a way that no one ever has, and those people are going to once again figure something out that no one else had before. Maybe one of those things is going to concern moving from one place to another in less time than would be possible if you actually traveled that entire linear distance.
I'm not going to try and argue with you whether or not any human today knows how to travel large distances through space quickly, but if you're going to try to argue that the things that we know today are never going to change then I think your entire premise is stupid and ignorant of history. The amount of things that we don't know about the universe is staggering. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you as much.