the energy subsidies themselves are stupid and should be dismantled as well, allowing the market to build clean and efficient nuclear power plants
I don't have a problem with using nuclear but there is necessarily a lot of regulation that comes with it because of the potential danger. I have zero faith that market forces alone will ensure safe operation of a nuclear fission plant. Are people unreasonably scared of nuclear? Probably but that isn't going to change either. Nuclear accidents, however unlikely, are scary things and unless you can convince people that coal is scarier or that they have no alternatives they aren't going to get built.
We subsidize because if you want alternatives that is the *only* way to ensure timely development. Energy is a fungible good. I'm not sure you realize the consequences of that fact. The money will never get invested in new "clean" technologies because there is no money to fund their development so long as we have cheap coal and cheap oil. I don't like subsidies as a rule any more than you do but sometimes they are a necessary evil. We subsidize infrastructure precisely because of market failure for that sort of investment. Pure economic self interest will inevitably lead consumers away from clean energy, not towards it.
and work towards technological solutions for a cleaner, power-efficient future without propping up worthless old technologies and inefficient and impractical ones like solar and wind with subsidies.
Exactly what are these "technological solutions" you propose? You ruled out solar and wind. What's left? Geothermal, hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas are the major options left. The last four are powerful but not clean - and yes nuclear is not clean. Hydro has environmental consequences too and geothermal is not available everywhere or in sufficient quantities.
If people want greener TVs, the market will make them available -- just look at the Toyota Prius, which Toyota can't churn out fast enough!
Toyota makes virtually no profit on the Prius even with the help of government subsidies. They make about $100 per vehicle net. If demand for hybrid vehicles was so great, don't you think they would account for more than 3% of total vehicle sales by now? Fact is that most folks aren't willing to pay the premium for hybrid vehicles yet. I think hybrids are the future but don't get ahead of yourself proclaiming them a market success.
Back when a 20MB hard drive was still a big capacity and everyone had zillions of floppy disks to manage I had a teacher give me a piece of advice I still live by:
If the disk contents aren't important enough to justify the tiny effort of labeling the disk then treat the disk as if it is blank.
Saves a lot of hand wringing about whether the files on the disk are important. If it wasn't important enough to take the very simple measure of writing a brief description of the contents of then you probably didn't need the contents anyway. If by some chance you did need the contents your organizational skills/system suck and you deserve the consequences.
The problem should never be organizing SD cards however. The problem should be organizing and backing up the photos once you have downloaded the contents to your PC. Even if a photographer has 30+ SD (or equivalent) cards with him for a shoot, the contents should not remain on those cards for long after the shoot is done.
How in the world could one "screw up" plugging in power, monitor and USB?
Never underestimate morons. I agree you have to wonder about the intellect of the folks who cause these mini-catastrophes. I've seen countless bent pins on HD15 cables, USB connectors that get bent so they can't maintain a friction fit, and of course phone cables plugged into ethernet ports. I even saw one guy plug a modem into itself by routing the phone cable from the line jack to the phone jack - wasn't plugged into the wall at all!
Pretty much if it can be plugged in the wrong place, bent, mangled or otherwise screwed up it *will* happen. You're right that it is a head scratcher sometimes and users being morons is not in my opinion a useful argument against a laptop dock. Cost, use of valuable space in a laptop and the fact that docks really are more of a luxury than a necessity are FAR better arguments against them. Personally I like not having to plug in my mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers, ethernet, external hard drive + whatever else each time I come to my desk. Also saves me from transporting some cables. Worth the extra bucks and trade-offs to me but your mileage may vary and I respect that.
If you've seen some of the docks on the market, they are much more laborious to connect, and much easier to screw up with.
Certainly possible to design a crappy dock and I've seen a few. But I've used docks for much of the last 10 years when available and they work well. The ones from IBM/Lenovo are generally of pretty good quality.
Ok, so you want to force everyone to have yet another port on their laptop that adds to the weight and style just so that they can doc their laptop in one or 2 seconds less.
A real dock will do more than attach rapidly. Mine has an additional port for a removable drive, maintains a live ethernet connection when the laptop is missing/asleep, gives me a physical lock to keep the machine from growing legs, and even has a half size PCI slot. It also lets me store my laptop quickly and easily out of the way when at my desk so I don't have a rats nest of cables on my desk - not critical but very nice. A real dock is more than just a port replicator. It can actually add function to your machine.
And don't underestimate the benefit of hot plugging a laptop if you are going to meetings all the time and need your machine. I've had days where it has saved me 5-15 minutes of plugging cables which is really nice if you are very busy. I can think of lots of other things I'd rather do than plug in a bunch of cables each time I come to my desk.
You claim that the monitor and USB ports are going to get messed up over time but the docs port will likely suffer the same fate.
Having used docking stations heavily on IBM/Lenovo laptops for most of the last decade I can say confidently you are incorrect on that assumption. The dock connectors are quite reliable most of the time. USB and ethernet ports are designed to be removed a lot so they usually aren't the problem though it is annoying to constantly be attaching them. The problems are more with HD-15 (VGA) connectors and some of the others that aren't really designed for daily installation and regular connection/disconnection. No bent pins, no loose friction fit connectors, and a more organized desktop to boot. (no pun intended)
Minor nitpick but Wiki says the death zone is 7,000 to 8,000 meters
The same article also says "in the "death zone" at 7,000 to 8,000 m (23,000 to 26,200 ft) and higher". There are only 14 peaks in the world higher than 8000 meters and the actual deaths don't usually occur at the summit but below, frequently while descending. This is simply due to the timing of summit assaults versus human endurance. Once in the so called death zone climbers have a finite amount of time to summit and return - the exact amount depending on the climber and the conditions. If they are delayed for some reason (weather, accidents, fatigue, etc) they will die, the only question is how long they will last. They often die on the way down as they make bad decisions while loopy from lack of oxygen. But the effect is the same above 8000m as between 7000m-8000m, there just aren't as many deaths there due to logistical reasons.
Above about 7000m the human body simply cannot sustain life for extended periods. Digestion becomes difficult if not impossible and oxygen is used up faster than it can be replenished. Delirium, fatigue, and pulmonary problems occur with frequently fatal results. I admire the courage of people who climb these mountains but I also think they are mildly insane - especially those who climb K2 (27% fatality rate) or Annapurna (54% fatality rate).
So the numbers per your link (thanks btw) are in the ballpark but they are averages for the ability to perform useful work, not as the original link asserted maximums of physical consciousness. I suspected there was a nugget of truth in their somewhere but the original assertion ("unconsciousness in 90 seconds at 30,000 feet") seemed a bit of a stretch.
At 30,000 feet MSL, the healthiest humans can only maintain consciousness about 1.5 minutes max.
Citation please.
You are saying that despite the fact that mountaineers have summited Mount Everest which is 29,029 feet MSL (8,848 meters) without supplementary oxygen that they would only last for 1.5 minutes just 1000 feet higher? Sorry but I'm having a hard time swallowing that one. Yes it is very dangerous for anyone to be above about 26,000 feet (8000 meters) - it's called the death zone for a reason - but it seems to me that people can very likely last longer than 1.5 minutes at that altitude even assuming rapid decompression.
What Detroit needs to do -- and what I think it will be forced to do -- is convert to long range electric vehicles, that's all.
Forced by whom? Even the best selling hybrid electric vehicle (the Prius) has virtually no profit margin (Toyota reportedly makes about $100 per Prius) and all hybrid vehicles together account for less than 3% of vehicle sales even in the face of high gas prices. I keep reading this meme that people were duped into buying SUVs and that people really want electric vehicles. So far at least that is exactly backwards. The Detroit automakers were forced (yes forced) to make SUVs because that is what the consumers demanded that had a high enough profit margin for them to make. Unfortunately high gas prices and tight credit have put the screws to them, magnified by their overly concentrated product portfolio - even Toyota made an operating loss for the first time in 70 years this quarter.
Make no mistake, I think hybrid and electric vehicles are the future and I think the US auto industry had finally gotten religion but it's not going to happen tomorrow or even in the next 5 years. If gas remains too cheap and there is little incentive to convert to a new fuel source (electric) even if it is actually better for society.
Increased life expectancy has more to do with improved diet and improved sanitation than with medicine.
I love how you just proclaim those as facts we should all just accept. Diet and sanitation are unquestionably important factors but if you are going to pronounce them as "more" important than medicine, public health policy, economic development, or even education you need to provide evidence. These are not easily separable issues and frankly trying to separate them is probably a waste of time. Basically you are trying to argue that modern medicine has not been a vital factor in increased human lifespans despite there being tremendous evidence supporting its positive impact.
According to the CDC about 35% of the deaths in 1900 were from pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Since sanitation is a key part of public health AND medicine you'll have a very difficult time convincing anyone that definitively one is more important or responsible than the other in general. Prevention AND treatment are important. Polio is transmitted fecal-oral but it was finally controlled primarily by vaccine. Other diseases for which we have no effective cure (malaria for instance) we control primarily through public health policy. We use the best tool available for a given problem. Frequently that tool is modern medicine.
Some of the top ten causes of death in 1900 such a diptheria did not significantly decline until a vaccine was widely disseminated. Tuberculosis is treated with antibiotics - sanitation and diet will not prevent infection though they may improve prognosis.
Today heart disease is the number one killer - sadly significantly increased by our modern diet. Cancer is number two largely due to it's increased prevalence in our now older population. Only heart disease, cancer and accidents remain on the top 10 list from 1900 in 2000 and the incidence per-capita of every other cause of death on the 1900 list has decreased. Is medicine 100% responsible? Certainly not. But it IS a major factor and arguably every bit as important as improved diet, public health policy, and sanitation.
Frankly I think you are full of nonsensical opinions, faulty reasoning and your ideas are unsupported by actual facts. If you wish to continue to debate the issue find someone else. I think you are a fool.
What, Clinical Journal of Pain and Anesthesia & Analgesia, aren't reputable?
If you are trying to make a credible argument, ALL your sources need to be credible, not just some. I'm certainly not going to be persuaded by a random web page citing selected studies while trying to sell shiatsu services. Does the term conflict of interest mean anything to you?
How about you citing some double blind studies of surgical techniques?
When you can show me how to ethically conduct a double blind study for most surgical techniques I'll be happy to. Surgeons don't typically conduct the sort of study you are asking for because cutting on someone without the intent to cure usually crosses a very serious ethical boundary. It can be done in rare cases but not commonly even with informed consent. So other types of studies are done even though a double blind study is preferable whenever possible.
The first placebo surgery test was for a treatment for angina pectoris called internal mammary artery ligation. This was at one time a popular procedure, but it's not used now...
We also used to take peoples tonsils out regularly and use leaches to remove the bad humors. Some procedures we use now will undoubtedly be proven ineffective. That's how medicine progresses - we learn what works and what doesn't unfortunately by experience and evidence. But there are plenty of surgical procedures with VERY clear benefits and substantial evidence to support their efficacy. One ineffective procedure doesn't make the others worthless.
A 2002 study of arthroscopic knee surgery [mindbodyhealth.com] found that the outcomes for a placebo procedure were as good as those of the "real" surgery.
Again, sometimes particular procedures prove ineffective for particular conditions. It happens. You aren't proving surgery in general is no better than a placebo you are merely proving it for a very specific condition. Useful information but hardly damning against surgery in general.
In a 2004 study [sciencedaily.com] of transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients...
The placebo effect is real, news at 11.
In no similar study has a surgical technique proven better than a placebo cut.
Ignoring the fact that most such studies would be highly unethical (good luck doing a placebo cut on a transplant patient) every surgical procedure in common use has studies evaluating its effectiveness.
I had LASIK surgery - I'm pretty sure I couldn't see clearly more than a foot in front of my face before the procedure and I have better than 20/20 vision now. Are you seriously going to claim that a placebo cut could affect the refraction of light in my eyes in such a way as to give me 20/20 vision? I'm an engineer so I understand the physics pretty damn well and I'm married to an MD. Explain that one smart guy.
We can argue about what that fact implies, but if you want to be rational and scientific, you can't dismiss it as ludicrous
Sure I can because you haven't presented any compelling evidence to support your hypothesis. If you want to be "rational and scientific" then prove your hypothesis. You posited that "no surgical technique has been proven better than a placebo cut". So prove it. Citing a few random studies of failed experimental or ineffective procedures doesn't prove surgery is worthless outside of those particular cases. That's just science in action. We hypothesize something and then test it to prove if we were right. Scientists are wrong more often than they are right but that's ok - that's how we learn.
If you want to prove that surgery is worthless, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll support your effort. But it is up to YOU to build a case for your hypothesis. I don't happen to believe it but I'll listen - skeptically - but I'll listen. Right now you simply don't have any credible evidence that I can see.
I am very skeptical of anything my doctor says because the level of trust and the record just isn't there yet in modern medicine.
Are you kidding? Medicine isn't perfect and never will be but modern medicine has doubled life expectancies in the last 100 years, cured/prevented countless diseases, improved quality of life, and saved many millions of lives. It's one of the greatest triumphs of humanity and you are saying the record isn't there? I say you are a grade-A fool if you think that.
If proof == "medicine" and no proof == "alternative treatment", then why is massage [miami.edu] or acupressure [google.com] or dietary changes [webmd.com] considered alternative treatment?
How about 2+2 = chocolate milk? That's a redefinition which makes about as much sense as yours. Alternative mean an option. You might have several alternatives that are effective treatments though one might be preferred. Alternative has nothing to do with proof or the lack thereof. You can try treatments that are not proven to work. Happens all the time and that is how medicine advances. The first time we tried penicillin there was no certainty that it would work. But the doctors did have a credible theory as to why it might work. Most drugs we try are abject failures.
Now you are using "alternative treatment" in a different sense meaning something different than the standard of care. Massage has its uses but it doesn't cure brain cancer. Dietary changes are helpful for many things but won't set a broken bone. Suggesting that they will is quackery and anyone who promotes them as cures for problems they clearly cannot help is a criminal who should be in jail.
I do shiatsu acupressure, and I can cite studies on its effectiveness
How about citing some double blind studies from actually reputable journals ("Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine"? You HAVE to be kidding me) or even some studies that I can't shoot holes in by reading the abstracts?
And why is surgery considered "medicine"?
Because it works and actually cures people of serious problems would be my guess. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure some smart folks might have looked into this.
Every placebo controlled study of a surgical technique has found it no better than a placebo operation.
That might just be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on Slashdot. And that is really saying something. Apparently you'll believe anything you read no matter the source unless that source has a hint of being credible.
You need to keep up on the news. Madoff's niece is a lawyer for his firm, and she's married to an SEC investigator.
That's not evidence of corruption. Conflict of interest maybe but absent additional facts that is not sufficient grounds to level a charge of corruption. The SEC has plenty of investigators and their real problem is that they lack the funding and manpower to seriously fulfill their job of regulating financial institutions. Furthermore the SEC has freely admitted they dropped the ball and that so far there is no evidence of malfeasance by any SEC employee. Furthermore the husband of the niece in question left the agency in 2006. If you can point me to a news article illustrating that there is any clear evidence that this niece unduly influenced investigative proceedings then I will gladly concede the issue.
Just because someone could potentially act unethically doesn't automatically imply that they did in fact act unethically. I know it makes for a nice conspiracy theory but let's get some actual evidence first shall we?
Well then all you're asking for is a false sense of security, because the opportunity for corruption is ridiculously high. (Bernard Madoff comes to mind)
You are correct about the potential for a false sense of security but don't mistake incompetence of regulators (the SEC) with corruption of a trusted agent (Madoff).
That's not remote desktop. That's some sort of remote control application, with a ridiculous annual fee to use no less. Remote Desktop is the handy function built into Windows 2000+...
OK Mr. Pedantic. Remote desktop is also a generic term and there are a variety of vendors with different solutions for the iPhone including the randomly chosen one I linked to after 3 seconds on google. There are numerous protocols available besides RDP. I have no idea if the particular one I linked to is any good and don't really care. I simply was pointing out that such software does actual exist for the iPhone when the previous poster claimed it did not exist.
Please tell me you aren't calling the iPhone's virtual keyboard "good"?
I believe the exact words I used were "works well enough" so please actually read what I wrote would you? If you don't like the virtual keyboard I have no argument with that - it's hardly perfect - but I've use it all the time and it works just fine. Great? No. Adequate? Yes.
I thought Windows Mobile had a crappy virtual keyboard, now I almost long for my WM keyboard on my iPod.
So get down off your cross, stop whining about it and go use whatever device makes you happy. No one really cares what you use so pick what you actually like. There are other fine choices besides the iPhone and iPod Touch out there.
If Microsoft can be sued over this, who's to say that they couldn't go after every other stationary tray-loading spinning-disc-player manufacturer?
Ever hear of an implied warranty? Are you seriously arguing we shouldn't sue companies that knowingly sell a defective product without warning? Sorry, I don't buy your argument. If all those companies knowingly sell a product with a defect and take measures to conceal that defect to the detriment of consumers then they deserve to be sued.
Besides, children are frequent users of Xboxen. Anything sold to children should pretty much assume that it will get beat up and abused and moved while in use. If the Xbox can't be moved while in operation, that is pretty much a defect in design in my opinion.
Even laptop(remember, laptops are designed to be portable) owners wouldn't tilt theirs 90 degrees sideways while spinning a disc.
Sure I would. Why wouldn't I? Absent an explicit and prominent warning against the such tilting it is reasonable to assume the manufacturer considered and guarded against such user behavior. I expect my equipment to be hardened against reasonably foreseeable usage. If tilting the machine would cause problems that can be engineered around I expect explicit and prominent warnings detailing the problem. I've NEVER seen a laptop instruct me not to tilt it while a disc was spinning and I have in fact done so many times without incident.
I'll give you an example for other phones - copy and paste, a fundamental usability requirement, is, so I hear, not even implemented on the Iphone?
That depends very much on how you use the phone. I'll concede it would be nice but on the other hand I have one and haven't missed cut-and-paste terribly and I use an iPhone regularly. I'm surprised at that fact but it really hasn't been an issue for me. I think my Nokia has the ability but I've never used it on the Nokia either.
Anything that the Iphone can't do is a "nice checkbox feature", whilst the Iphone apparently beats all other phones on unspecific features, that despite being so vague, are apparently not "checkbox features".
Because there are a lot of phones out there and it's kind of silly to try to compare one phone to every other phone on a feature by feature basis in a single post. You have to take it case by case (which I have) or you can simply try for yourself and see why I make that generalized assertion. It's based on experience. Can you say the same? It's OK if you need features the iPhone doesn't provide but clearly the iPhone does fit the needs of a large group of people. But you really just have to use the iPhone to understand the difference. You can't really just describe it or look at a feature list - you have to use it and see if it fits how you use a device.
Nevertheless you want specific examples? No problem.
Let me preface - I presently use a Nokia E70 and an iPhone. I've had plenty of other phones but I use those two right now because they best fit my needs. The discussion below is based on my personal experiences with both devices.
It took me approximately 30 minutes to set up the first iPhone I touched. My latest Nokia with a comparable set of features took me 4 hours. Bear in mind that I've had extensive experience with Nokia S60 phones and have owned at least one Nokia continuously for the last 10 years and I have an engineering degree.
The MP3 player on my Nokia phone makes it very difficult to search my music library, difficult to sync, and does not even remotely compare to the ease of use of iTunes/iPod. Seriously, Nokia's MP3 player in my phone sucks ass. Yes it can play MP3s but that is about all it does. It is incredibly frustrating to navigate my music library on my Nokia.
The Nokia I have limits me to 5 icons on the main screen for important apps. Anything more and I have to navigate into menus. I cannot get the email or calendar off the front page despite them not actually being very useful there. Furthermore to change the icons I have to navigate to some obscure menu in the settings whereas with the iPhone I simply hold down the icon until it jiggles and drag it where I want it.
The Nokia did not come with a keyboard locking application built in despite it being a candybar phone. I had to find and install one from a third party vendor.
The Nokia seems incapable of reliably transitioning between wifi and GSM networks for email. It works sometimes but unreliably and has a tendency to forget settings. And the settings are in another obscure menu that is poorly labeled and hard to find. The iPhones settings are very easy to find and clearly labeled.
Downloading third party applications is a very straight forward process on the iPhone through their app store. On my Nokia only a geek like me would bother.
The web browser in the iPhone with it's larger screen and touch interface is a lot easier to use. I can zoom in and out relatively efficiently, orient the page, and effectively use more web pages than I can with my Nokia. It's bad enough on my Nokia that I don't bother with the web browser unless I desperately need it.
My Nokia can use a MiniSD card which is nice but my iPhone has 16GB of storage built in. Since I never have a need to remove the SD card AND the Nokia doesn't support a card with 16GB of capacity the iPhone once again is more useful. I can
There is no office software, there is no remote desktop, there is a pretty interface though.
If you think the iphone interface is just pretty you haven't really used it despite claims to the contrary. While the iphone is hardly perfect it is a HELL of a lot more usable for most folks than any Windows mobile, Palm or Nokia phone I've ever held - and I've used a LOT of them. Seriously - a LOT.
Regarding office software, I'm quite sure it will come for whatever it's worth. I've never seen anyone actually do anything genuinely useful to a word, excel or powerpoint file on a PDA or smartphone - and I'm pretty geeky about this stuff. It's a nice checkbox feature that never actually gets used. I had the ability on my last PDA and I never once used it. I can't even think of a situation where I would use it. Maybe you actually do but that would make you very unusual.
That is nice, but it's a very long way away from matching the feature set of my 6 year old phone.
My Nokia E70 has roughly the same feature set as my wife's iPhone. But you know what? Only on paper are they comparable. Other than the physical keyboard the interface on the iPhone is vastly superior - and the virtual keyboard works well enough. Yes I can often get the same stuff done but it's way more of a pain in the ass on the Nokia. Same with the Treos I've used in the past - some Windows mobile, some PalmOS. There is more to a mobile device than just a feature set - it has to actually be usable.
So what makes the Iphone so awesome? Nothing.
There are millions of folks who actually use one that would probably disagree with you, myself included. I've heavily used numerous smartphone and PDA devices from RIM, Nokia, Palm, and a bunch based on Windows mobile. For most (not all - most) people I'm not aware of a device I could honestly recommend as better than an iPhone. If you have particular needs, yes there are other good devices that might suit you better. But the iPhone isn't selling so well because it is mediocre - it actually works pretty darn well. I can't say the same for a lot of other "smart" phone devices.
What makes it popular is the apple mystic and excellent marketing, but there is a reason serious business users shy away from it.
No, the reason business users don't use it is because Apple hasn't created the back end security and administration features corporate IT departments REQUIRE and RIM currently provides. Apple has recognized this and made some moves in that direction but it will take time to develop. It has nothing to do with any inherent superiority of blackberries as devices. I've used plenty of them and they are fine but corporate types don't use them because of the device itself - they use them because of the infrastructure.
I don't know a single business, be it 7/11, the grocery store, auto parts store or whatever, that does not accept a debt card,...
You need to get out more. Countless businesses don't accept credit cards and debit cards. Heck I OWN a business that doesn't take credit cards for non-internet transactions. Many don't accept checks, and even a (very) few don't accept cash. The transaction fees on debit and credit cards are too high for many low dollar transactions. Many government transactions prohibit using credit/debit cards by law.
BTW there is a LOT more to direct debit than debit cards. You'll notice I never mentioned debit cards because the issue is larger than just debit cards. Debit cards are not a viable substitute for checks by themselves because you need a merchant account to accept payment.
Huh? Where are these bank accountless people you speak of? Surely they are in a tiny minority.
By some accounts as many as 25% of Americans lack banking accounts as of 2001. Even the most conservative estimates put it in the millions. In any case it's a very significant number. You don't have to take my word for it either.
There's lots of compelling reasons to switch.
I agree there are reasons but the fact that folks haven't converted is proof positive that they aren't compelling. Bear in mind the word "compelling" because that's the important bit - and I don't mean compelling to me or you - I mean compelling enough even my 90 year old grandmother will care. To her a direct debit is something new and complicated which does not improve her life in any meaningful way.
Everybody I know uses debt cards first, credit cards next then cash and by last resort a check!
You must have a small group of associates since Visa cardholders alone accounted for over $1 Trillion in purchases in 2006 and there are over 450 million credit cards being carried in the US alone. That's 1.5 cards per-capita. Personally I don't even have a debit card, I buy everything possible with a credit card which I pay at the end of the month, and use checks or cash when required. I'd rather earn interest on the float plus I get a percentage back. Debit cards are useful but can be an unnecessary risk if you are responsible with credit.
Especially when dealing with people like you who seem to have no foresight and are quite content to remain behind the times based on irrational and unfounded assumptions... The rest of us have moved on long ago....
Well aren't you the clever little troll who knows what is best for everyone else. I'm just a certified accountant with masters degrees in finance and engineering so clearly I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to managing money.
When you grow up and get out into the real world come on back and if you can be civil for a change we'll have a nice little debate.
Why don't Americans use wire transfer more often? In Europe it is a fast and relatively safe method.
Lots of reasons.
It's what people know how to use (don't dismiss the importance of that)
The infrastructure is in place for checks and not as much for direct debit - this is however steadily changing
Millions of people in the US do not have bank accounts and checks are still useful if you don't have a counter party financial institution
Checks mostly work just fine despite their problems and there is little compelling need for a switch for most people.
Direct debit IS available and widely used, but it's going to take a long time for a full switch over. It's a bit like the IPv4 to IPv6 switch. There are advantages but the advantages are minor and/or behind the scenes so most consumers don't care.
The US is bigger than any single European country and like getting the entire EU on a single system, getting the US to change a working (if imperfect) financial system doesn't happen overnight.
The switch will happen, it's just going to take a while. Give it time.
Really, when I applied for my firearms permit I was told by the officer that my payment must be made in the form of money order or cashiers check. No cash would be accepted.
Some forms of legal tender can be refused in some jurisdictions if there was not a pre-existing debt obligation prior to the time of the transaction. That's why for example gas stations can legally refuse large denomination bills. If you had to pay at the time of the transaction then they probably were within their rights to restrict forms of payment. Annoying but probably legal.
The more I read about the USA the more it appears that apart from a bit of glitz around New York and LA, the whole place is like some backward 3rd world country populated by peasants in SUVs demanding that their way is right and everyone else is out of step.
NICE troll. Complete nonsense only a moron would actually believe and a bigger moron would say but a nice troll nonetheless. If you naively think the US is populated by "peasants" outside of NYC and LA, then it's clear you don't understand how the US achieved the largest economy in the world.
Direct debit IS used heavily in the US - just not as heavily as some other places. Direct deposit of paychecks, bill payments, social security, tax refunds/payments, and others are all commonly made via ACH payments. It's not hard to set up or use and is steadily becoming more and more common. But the infrastructure will take time to change and change for something like that will come slowly since there is no compelling need from the consumer's standpoint.
Direct debit initiated via paper forms is pretty much analogous to a check from a practical standpoint. A key difference is who initiates the transfer (payer versus payee) but either way money gets transferred so most people don't care. Why don't they care? Despite their problems, checks WORK. They work even when you don't have a bank account, and many millions of Americans don't - usually those who are poor, here illegally, and many minorities who don't trust the banks due to an unfortunate legacy of racism. A direct transfer is useless if there is no counter party financial institution to transfer to.
Slashdot Mirror
the energy subsidies themselves are stupid and should be dismantled as well, allowing the market to build clean and efficient nuclear power plants
I don't have a problem with using nuclear but there is necessarily a lot of regulation that comes with it because of the potential danger. I have zero faith that market forces alone will ensure safe operation of a nuclear fission plant. Are people unreasonably scared of nuclear? Probably but that isn't going to change either. Nuclear accidents, however unlikely, are scary things and unless you can convince people that coal is scarier or that they have no alternatives they aren't going to get built.
We subsidize because if you want alternatives that is the *only* way to ensure timely development. Energy is a fungible good. I'm not sure you realize the consequences of that fact. The money will never get invested in new "clean" technologies because there is no money to fund their development so long as we have cheap coal and cheap oil. I don't like subsidies as a rule any more than you do but sometimes they are a necessary evil. We subsidize infrastructure precisely because of market failure for that sort of investment. Pure economic self interest will inevitably lead consumers away from clean energy, not towards it.
and work towards technological solutions for a cleaner, power-efficient future without propping up worthless old technologies and inefficient and impractical ones like solar and wind with subsidies.
Exactly what are these "technological solutions" you propose? You ruled out solar and wind. What's left? Geothermal, hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas are the major options left. The last four are powerful but not clean - and yes nuclear is not clean. Hydro has environmental consequences too and geothermal is not available everywhere or in sufficient quantities.
If people want greener TVs, the market will make them available -- just look at the Toyota Prius, which Toyota can't churn out fast enough!
Toyota makes virtually no profit on the Prius even with the help of government subsidies. They make about $100 per vehicle net. If demand for hybrid vehicles was so great, don't you think they would account for more than 3% of total vehicle sales by now? Fact is that most folks aren't willing to pay the premium for hybrid vehicles yet. I think hybrids are the future but don't get ahead of yourself proclaiming them a market success.
So how does one label an SD card
With one of these. Should have thought that was obvious...
Back when a 20MB hard drive was still a big capacity and everyone had zillions of floppy disks to manage I had a teacher give me a piece of advice I still live by:
If the disk contents aren't important enough to justify the tiny effort of labeling the disk then treat the disk as if it is blank.
Saves a lot of hand wringing about whether the files on the disk are important. If it wasn't important enough to take the very simple measure of writing a brief description of the contents of then you probably didn't need the contents anyway. If by some chance you did need the contents your organizational skills/system suck and you deserve the consequences.
The problem should never be organizing SD cards however. The problem should be organizing and backing up the photos once you have downloaded the contents to your PC. Even if a photographer has 30+ SD (or equivalent) cards with him for a shoot, the contents should not remain on those cards for long after the shoot is done.
How in the world could one "screw up" plugging in power, monitor and USB?
Never underestimate morons. I agree you have to wonder about the intellect of the folks who cause these mini-catastrophes. I've seen countless bent pins on HD15 cables, USB connectors that get bent so they can't maintain a friction fit, and of course phone cables plugged into ethernet ports. I even saw one guy plug a modem into itself by routing the phone cable from the line jack to the phone jack - wasn't plugged into the wall at all!
Pretty much if it can be plugged in the wrong place, bent, mangled or otherwise screwed up it *will* happen. You're right that it is a head scratcher sometimes and users being morons is not in my opinion a useful argument against a laptop dock. Cost, use of valuable space in a laptop and the fact that docks really are more of a luxury than a necessity are FAR better arguments against them. Personally I like not having to plug in my mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers, ethernet, external hard drive + whatever else each time I come to my desk. Also saves me from transporting some cables. Worth the extra bucks and trade-offs to me but your mileage may vary and I respect that.
If you've seen some of the docks on the market, they are much more laborious to connect, and much easier to screw up with.
Certainly possible to design a crappy dock and I've seen a few. But I've used docks for much of the last 10 years when available and they work well. The ones from IBM/Lenovo are generally of pretty good quality.
Ok, so you want to force everyone to have yet another port on their laptop that adds to the weight and style just so that they can doc their laptop in one or 2 seconds less.
A real dock will do more than attach rapidly. Mine has an additional port for a removable drive, maintains a live ethernet connection when the laptop is missing/asleep, gives me a physical lock to keep the machine from growing legs, and even has a half size PCI slot. It also lets me store my laptop quickly and easily out of the way when at my desk so I don't have a rats nest of cables on my desk - not critical but very nice. A real dock is more than just a port replicator. It can actually add function to your machine.
And don't underestimate the benefit of hot plugging a laptop if you are going to meetings all the time and need your machine. I've had days where it has saved me 5-15 minutes of plugging cables which is really nice if you are very busy. I can think of lots of other things I'd rather do than plug in a bunch of cables each time I come to my desk.
You claim that the monitor and USB ports are going to get messed up over time but the docs port will likely suffer the same fate.
Having used docking stations heavily on IBM/Lenovo laptops for most of the last decade I can say confidently you are incorrect on that assumption. The dock connectors are quite reliable most of the time. USB and ethernet ports are designed to be removed a lot so they usually aren't the problem though it is annoying to constantly be attaching them. The problems are more with HD-15 (VGA) connectors and some of the others that aren't really designed for daily installation and regular connection/disconnection. No bent pins, no loose friction fit connectors, and a more organized desktop to boot. (no pun intended)
Minor nitpick but Wiki says the death zone is 7,000 to 8,000 meters
The same article also says "in the "death zone" at 7,000 to 8,000 m (23,000 to 26,200 ft) and higher". There are only 14 peaks in the world higher than 8000 meters and the actual deaths don't usually occur at the summit but below, frequently while descending. This is simply due to the timing of summit assaults versus human endurance. Once in the so called death zone climbers have a finite amount of time to summit and return - the exact amount depending on the climber and the conditions. If they are delayed for some reason (weather, accidents, fatigue, etc) they will die, the only question is how long they will last. They often die on the way down as they make bad decisions while loopy from lack of oxygen. But the effect is the same above 8000m as between 7000m-8000m, there just aren't as many deaths there due to logistical reasons.
Above about 7000m the human body simply cannot sustain life for extended periods. Digestion becomes difficult if not impossible and oxygen is used up faster than it can be replenished. Delirium, fatigue, and pulmonary problems occur with frequently fatal results. I admire the courage of people who climb these mountains but I also think they are mildly insane - especially those who climb K2 (27% fatality rate) or Annapurna (54% fatality rate).
The numbers are basically correct...
So the numbers per your link (thanks btw) are in the ballpark but they are averages for the ability to perform useful work, not as the original link asserted maximums of physical consciousness. I suspected there was a nugget of truth in their somewhere but the original assertion ("unconsciousness in 90 seconds at 30,000 feet") seemed a bit of a stretch.
He did say _sudden_ exposure. Mountain climbers take many days to acclimatise.
But posted anonymously and cited no sources. Sorry but I've got a bit too much skeptical scientist in me to buy that assertion at face value.
BTW Mountain climbers acclimate to avoid altitude sickness, not to avoid sudden asphyxiation.
At 30,000 feet MSL, the healthiest humans can only maintain consciousness about 1.5 minutes max.
Citation please.
You are saying that despite the fact that mountaineers have summited Mount Everest which is 29,029 feet MSL (8,848 meters) without supplementary oxygen that they would only last for 1.5 minutes just 1000 feet higher? Sorry but I'm having a hard time swallowing that one. Yes it is very dangerous for anyone to be above about 26,000 feet (8000 meters) - it's called the death zone for a reason - but it seems to me that people can very likely last longer than 1.5 minutes at that altitude even assuming rapid decompression.
What Detroit needs to do -- and what I think it will be forced to do -- is convert to long range electric vehicles, that's all.
Forced by whom? Even the best selling hybrid electric vehicle (the Prius) has virtually no profit margin (Toyota reportedly makes about $100 per Prius) and all hybrid vehicles together account for less than 3% of vehicle sales even in the face of high gas prices. I keep reading this meme that people were duped into buying SUVs and that people really want electric vehicles. So far at least that is exactly backwards. The Detroit automakers were forced (yes forced) to make SUVs because that is what the consumers demanded that had a high enough profit margin for them to make. Unfortunately high gas prices and tight credit have put the screws to them, magnified by their overly concentrated product portfolio - even Toyota made an operating loss for the first time in 70 years this quarter.
Make no mistake, I think hybrid and electric vehicles are the future and I think the US auto industry had finally gotten religion but it's not going to happen tomorrow or even in the next 5 years. If gas remains too cheap and there is little incentive to convert to a new fuel source (electric) even if it is actually better for society.
Increased life expectancy has more to do with improved diet and improved sanitation than with medicine.
I love how you just proclaim those as facts we should all just accept. Diet and sanitation are unquestionably important factors but if you are going to pronounce them as "more" important than medicine, public health policy, economic development, or even education you need to provide evidence. These are not easily separable issues and frankly trying to separate them is probably a waste of time. Basically you are trying to argue that modern medicine has not been a vital factor in increased human lifespans despite there being tremendous evidence supporting its positive impact.
According to the CDC about 35% of the deaths in 1900 were from pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Since sanitation is a key part of public health AND medicine you'll have a very difficult time convincing anyone that definitively one is more important or responsible than the other in general. Prevention AND treatment are important. Polio is transmitted fecal-oral but it was finally controlled primarily by vaccine. Other diseases for which we have no effective cure (malaria for instance) we control primarily through public health policy. We use the best tool available for a given problem. Frequently that tool is modern medicine.
Some of the top ten causes of death in 1900 such a diptheria did not significantly decline until a vaccine was widely disseminated. Tuberculosis is treated with antibiotics - sanitation and diet will not prevent infection though they may improve prognosis.
Today heart disease is the number one killer - sadly significantly increased by our modern diet. Cancer is number two largely due to it's increased prevalence in our now older population. Only heart disease, cancer and accidents remain on the top 10 list from 1900 in 2000 and the incidence per-capita of every other cause of death on the 1900 list has decreased. Is medicine 100% responsible? Certainly not. But it IS a major factor and arguably every bit as important as improved diet, public health policy, and sanitation.
Frankly I think you are full of nonsensical opinions, faulty reasoning and your ideas are unsupported by actual facts. If you wish to continue to debate the issue find someone else. I think you are a fool.
What, Clinical Journal of Pain and Anesthesia & Analgesia, aren't reputable?
If you are trying to make a credible argument, ALL your sources need to be credible, not just some. I'm certainly not going to be persuaded by a random web page citing selected studies while trying to sell shiatsu services. Does the term conflict of interest mean anything to you?
How about you citing some double blind studies of surgical techniques?
When you can show me how to ethically conduct a double blind study for most surgical techniques I'll be happy to. Surgeons don't typically conduct the sort of study you are asking for because cutting on someone without the intent to cure usually crosses a very serious ethical boundary. It can be done in rare cases but not commonly even with informed consent. So other types of studies are done even though a double blind study is preferable whenever possible.
The first placebo surgery test was for a treatment for angina pectoris called internal mammary artery ligation. This was at one time a popular procedure, but it's not used now...
We also used to take peoples tonsils out regularly and use leaches to remove the bad humors. Some procedures we use now will undoubtedly be proven ineffective. That's how medicine progresses - we learn what works and what doesn't unfortunately by experience and evidence. But there are plenty of surgical procedures with VERY clear benefits and substantial evidence to support their efficacy. One ineffective procedure doesn't make the others worthless.
A 2002 study of arthroscopic knee surgery [mindbodyhealth.com] found that the outcomes for a placebo procedure were as good as those of the "real" surgery.
Again, sometimes particular procedures prove ineffective for particular conditions. It happens. You aren't proving surgery in general is no better than a placebo you are merely proving it for a very specific condition. Useful information but hardly damning against surgery in general.
In a 2004 study [sciencedaily.com] of transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients...
The placebo effect is real, news at 11.
In no similar study has a surgical technique proven better than a placebo cut.
Ignoring the fact that most such studies would be highly unethical (good luck doing a placebo cut on a transplant patient) every surgical procedure in common use has studies evaluating its effectiveness.
I had LASIK surgery - I'm pretty sure I couldn't see clearly more than a foot in front of my face before the procedure and I have better than 20/20 vision now. Are you seriously going to claim that a placebo cut could affect the refraction of light in my eyes in such a way as to give me 20/20 vision? I'm an engineer so I understand the physics pretty damn well and I'm married to an MD. Explain that one smart guy.
We can argue about what that fact implies, but if you want to be rational and scientific, you can't dismiss it as ludicrous
Sure I can because you haven't presented any compelling evidence to support your hypothesis. If you want to be "rational and scientific" then prove your hypothesis. You posited that "no surgical technique has been proven better than a placebo cut". So prove it. Citing a few random studies of failed experimental or ineffective procedures doesn't prove surgery is worthless outside of those particular cases. That's just science in action. We hypothesize something and then test it to prove if we were right. Scientists are wrong more often than they are right but that's ok - that's how we learn.
If you want to prove that surgery is worthless, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll support your effort. But it is up to YOU to build a case for your hypothesis. I don't happen to believe it but I'll listen - skeptically - but I'll listen. Right now you simply don't have any credible evidence that I can see.
I am very skeptical of anything my doctor says because the level of trust and the record just isn't there yet in modern medicine.
Are you kidding? Medicine isn't perfect and never will be but modern medicine has doubled life expectancies in the last 100 years, cured/prevented countless diseases, improved quality of life, and saved many millions of lives. It's one of the greatest triumphs of humanity and you are saying the record isn't there? I say you are a grade-A fool if you think that.
This will be fun. I love quackery!
If proof == "medicine" and no proof == "alternative treatment", then why is massage [miami.edu] or acupressure [google.com] or dietary changes [webmd.com] considered alternative treatment?
How about 2+2 = chocolate milk? That's a redefinition which makes about as much sense as yours. Alternative mean an option. You might have several alternatives that are effective treatments though one might be preferred. Alternative has nothing to do with proof or the lack thereof. You can try treatments that are not proven to work. Happens all the time and that is how medicine advances. The first time we tried penicillin there was no certainty that it would work. But the doctors did have a credible theory as to why it might work. Most drugs we try are abject failures.
Now you are using "alternative treatment" in a different sense meaning something different than the standard of care. Massage has its uses but it doesn't cure brain cancer. Dietary changes are helpful for many things but won't set a broken bone. Suggesting that they will is quackery and anyone who promotes them as cures for problems they clearly cannot help is a criminal who should be in jail.
I do shiatsu acupressure, and I can cite studies on its effectiveness
How about citing some double blind studies from actually reputable journals ("Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine"? You HAVE to be kidding me) or even some studies that I can't shoot holes in by reading the abstracts?
And why is surgery considered "medicine"?
Because it works and actually cures people of serious problems would be my guess. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure some smart folks might have looked into this.
Every placebo controlled study of a surgical technique has found it no better than a placebo operation.
That might just be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on Slashdot. And that is really saying something. Apparently you'll believe anything you read no matter the source unless that source has a hint of being credible.
You need to keep up on the news. Madoff's niece is a lawyer for his firm, and she's married to an SEC investigator.
That's not evidence of corruption. Conflict of interest maybe but absent additional facts that is not sufficient grounds to level a charge of corruption. The SEC has plenty of investigators and their real problem is that they lack the funding and manpower to seriously fulfill their job of regulating financial institutions. Furthermore the SEC has freely admitted they dropped the ball and that so far there is no evidence of malfeasance by any SEC employee. Furthermore the husband of the niece in question left the agency in 2006. If you can point me to a news article illustrating that there is any clear evidence that this niece unduly influenced investigative proceedings then I will gladly concede the issue.
Just because someone could potentially act unethically doesn't automatically imply that they did in fact act unethically. I know it makes for a nice conspiracy theory but let's get some actual evidence first shall we?
Well then all you're asking for is a false sense of security, because the opportunity for corruption is ridiculously high. (Bernard Madoff comes to mind)
You are correct about the potential for a false sense of security but don't mistake incompetence of regulators (the SEC) with corruption of a trusted agent (Madoff).
That's not remote desktop. That's some sort of remote control application, with a ridiculous annual fee to use no less. Remote Desktop is the handy function built into Windows 2000+...
OK Mr. Pedantic. Remote desktop is also a generic term and there are a variety of vendors with different solutions for the iPhone including the randomly chosen one I linked to after 3 seconds on google. There are numerous protocols available besides RDP. I have no idea if the particular one I linked to is any good and don't really care. I simply was pointing out that such software does actual exist for the iPhone when the previous poster claimed it did not exist.
Please tell me you aren't calling the iPhone's virtual keyboard "good"?
I believe the exact words I used were "works well enough" so please actually read what I wrote would you? If you don't like the virtual keyboard I have no argument with that - it's hardly perfect - but I've use it all the time and it works just fine. Great? No. Adequate? Yes.
I thought Windows Mobile had a crappy virtual keyboard, now I almost long for my WM keyboard on my iPod.
So get down off your cross, stop whining about it and go use whatever device makes you happy. No one really cares what you use so pick what you actually like. There are other fine choices besides the iPhone and iPod Touch out there.
If Microsoft can be sued over this, who's to say that they couldn't go after every other stationary tray-loading spinning-disc-player manufacturer?
Ever hear of an implied warranty? Are you seriously arguing we shouldn't sue companies that knowingly sell a defective product without warning? Sorry, I don't buy your argument. If all those companies knowingly sell a product with a defect and take measures to conceal that defect to the detriment of consumers then they deserve to be sued.
Besides, children are frequent users of Xboxen. Anything sold to children should pretty much assume that it will get beat up and abused and moved while in use. If the Xbox can't be moved while in operation, that is pretty much a defect in design in my opinion.
Even laptop(remember, laptops are designed to be portable) owners wouldn't tilt theirs 90 degrees sideways while spinning a disc.
Sure I would. Why wouldn't I? Absent an explicit and prominent warning against the such tilting it is reasonable to assume the manufacturer considered and guarded against such user behavior. I expect my equipment to be hardened against reasonably foreseeable usage. If tilting the machine would cause problems that can be engineered around I expect explicit and prominent warnings detailing the problem. I've NEVER seen a laptop instruct me not to tilt it while a disc was spinning and I have in fact done so many times without incident.
I'll give you an example for other phones - copy and paste, a fundamental usability requirement, is, so I hear, not even implemented on the Iphone?
That depends very much on how you use the phone. I'll concede it would be nice but on the other hand I have one and haven't missed cut-and-paste terribly and I use an iPhone regularly. I'm surprised at that fact but it really hasn't been an issue for me. I think my Nokia has the ability but I've never used it on the Nokia either.
Anything that the Iphone can't do is a "nice checkbox feature", whilst the Iphone apparently beats all other phones on unspecific features, that despite being so vague, are apparently not "checkbox features".
Because there are a lot of phones out there and it's kind of silly to try to compare one phone to every other phone on a feature by feature basis in a single post. You have to take it case by case (which I have) or you can simply try for yourself and see why I make that generalized assertion. It's based on experience. Can you say the same? It's OK if you need features the iPhone doesn't provide but clearly the iPhone does fit the needs of a large group of people. But you really just have to use the iPhone to understand the difference. You can't really just describe it or look at a feature list - you have to use it and see if it fits how you use a device.
Nevertheless you want specific examples? No problem.
Let me preface - I presently use a Nokia E70 and an iPhone. I've had plenty of other phones but I use those two right now because they best fit my needs. The discussion below is based on my personal experiences with both devices.
There is no office software, there is no remote desktop, there is a pretty interface though.
If you think the iphone interface is just pretty you haven't really used it despite claims to the contrary. While the iphone is hardly perfect it is a HELL of a lot more usable for most folks than any Windows mobile, Palm or Nokia phone I've ever held - and I've used a LOT of them. Seriously - a LOT.
As for remote desktop you are wrong, they do exist.
Regarding office software, I'm quite sure it will come for whatever it's worth. I've never seen anyone actually do anything genuinely useful to a word, excel or powerpoint file on a PDA or smartphone - and I'm pretty geeky about this stuff. It's a nice checkbox feature that never actually gets used. I had the ability on my last PDA and I never once used it. I can't even think of a situation where I would use it. Maybe you actually do but that would make you very unusual.
That is nice, but it's a very long way away from matching the feature set of my 6 year old phone.
My Nokia E70 has roughly the same feature set as my wife's iPhone. But you know what? Only on paper are they comparable. Other than the physical keyboard the interface on the iPhone is vastly superior - and the virtual keyboard works well enough. Yes I can often get the same stuff done but it's way more of a pain in the ass on the Nokia. Same with the Treos I've used in the past - some Windows mobile, some PalmOS. There is more to a mobile device than just a feature set - it has to actually be usable.
So what makes the Iphone so awesome? Nothing.
There are millions of folks who actually use one that would probably disagree with you, myself included. I've heavily used numerous smartphone and PDA devices from RIM, Nokia, Palm, and a bunch based on Windows mobile. For most (not all - most) people I'm not aware of a device I could honestly recommend as better than an iPhone. If you have particular needs, yes there are other good devices that might suit you better. But the iPhone isn't selling so well because it is mediocre - it actually works pretty darn well. I can't say the same for a lot of other "smart" phone devices.
What makes it popular is the apple mystic and excellent marketing, but there is a reason serious business users shy away from it.
No, the reason business users don't use it is because Apple hasn't created the back end security and administration features corporate IT departments REQUIRE and RIM currently provides. Apple has recognized this and made some moves in that direction but it will take time to develop. It has nothing to do with any inherent superiority of blackberries as devices. I've used plenty of them and they are fine but corporate types don't use them because of the device itself - they use them because of the infrastructure.
Actually Europe does have a single system for bank transfers
Which i would LOVE to see come to the US in a meaningful way. Not likely to happen soon though.
Europe has over 700 million citizens, compared with just 300 million Americans.
If you are going to the continent of Europe including Russia you need to compare with North America which has a population of 528 million or so.
I don't know a single business, be it 7/11, the grocery store, auto parts store or whatever, that does not accept a debt card,...
You need to get out more. Countless businesses don't accept credit cards and debit cards. Heck I OWN a business that doesn't take credit cards for non-internet transactions. Many don't accept checks, and even a (very) few don't accept cash. The transaction fees on debit and credit cards are too high for many low dollar transactions. Many government transactions prohibit using credit/debit cards by law.
BTW there is a LOT more to direct debit than debit cards. You'll notice I never mentioned debit cards because the issue is larger than just debit cards. Debit cards are not a viable substitute for checks by themselves because you need a merchant account to accept payment.
Huh? Where are these bank accountless people you speak of? Surely they are in a tiny minority.
By some accounts as many as 25% of Americans lack banking accounts as of 2001. Even the most conservative estimates put it in the millions. In any case it's a very significant number. You don't have to take my word for it either.
There's lots of compelling reasons to switch.
I agree there are reasons but the fact that folks haven't converted is proof positive that they aren't compelling. Bear in mind the word "compelling" because that's the important bit - and I don't mean compelling to me or you - I mean compelling enough even my 90 year old grandmother will care. To her a direct debit is something new and complicated which does not improve her life in any meaningful way.
Everybody I know uses debt cards first, credit cards next then cash and by last resort a check!
You must have a small group of associates since Visa cardholders alone accounted for over $1 Trillion in purchases in 2006 and there are over 450 million credit cards being carried in the US alone. That's 1.5 cards per-capita. Personally I don't even have a debit card, I buy everything possible with a credit card which I pay at the end of the month, and use checks or cash when required. I'd rather earn interest on the float plus I get a percentage back. Debit cards are useful but can be an unnecessary risk if you are responsible with credit.
Especially when dealing with people like you who seem to have no foresight and are quite content to remain behind the times based on irrational and unfounded assumptions... The rest of us have moved on long ago....
Well aren't you the clever little troll who knows what is best for everyone else. I'm just a certified accountant with masters degrees in finance and engineering so clearly I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to managing money.
When you grow up and get out into the real world come on back and if you can be civil for a change we'll have a nice little debate.
Why don't Americans use wire transfer more often? In Europe it is a fast and relatively safe method.
Lots of reasons.
The switch will happen, it's just going to take a while. Give it time.
Really, when I applied for my firearms permit I was told by the officer that my payment must be made in the form of money order or cashiers check. No cash would be accepted.
Some forms of legal tender can be refused in some jurisdictions if there was not a pre-existing debt obligation prior to the time of the transaction. That's why for example gas stations can legally refuse large denomination bills. If you had to pay at the time of the transaction then they probably were within their rights to restrict forms of payment. Annoying but probably legal.
The more I read about the USA the more it appears that apart from a bit of glitz around New York and LA, the whole place is like some backward 3rd world country populated by peasants in SUVs demanding that their way is right and everyone else is out of step.
NICE troll. Complete nonsense only a moron would actually believe and a bigger moron would say but a nice troll nonetheless. If you naively think the US is populated by "peasants" outside of NYC and LA, then it's clear you don't understand how the US achieved the largest economy in the world.
Direct debit IS used heavily in the US - just not as heavily as some other places. Direct deposit of paychecks, bill payments, social security, tax refunds/payments, and others are all commonly made via ACH payments. It's not hard to set up or use and is steadily becoming more and more common. But the infrastructure will take time to change and change for something like that will come slowly since there is no compelling need from the consumer's standpoint.
Direct debit initiated via paper forms is pretty much analogous to a check from a practical standpoint. A key difference is who initiates the transfer (payer versus payee) but either way money gets transferred so most people don't care. Why don't they care? Despite their problems, checks WORK. They work even when you don't have a bank account, and many millions of Americans don't - usually those who are poor, here illegally, and many minorities who don't trust the banks due to an unfortunate legacy of racism. A direct transfer is useless if there is no counter party financial institution to transfer to.