The bank's liabilities aren't negative money - they don't reduce the amount of 'stuff fitting the definition of money' which is circulating in the economy because they don't reduce person A's or pe
rson B's ability to use their bank account balances as money.
Glodime is also right, you've missed some liabilities - but he's missed some, too. The central bank has a liability of $100 which appeared when it issued the cash The total will add to zero if you
get it right. In the old days if you took your notes to the central bank and demanded payment they'd give you gold. Nowadays they'll pay you in legal tender:) The assets and liabilities created look
like this:
Person A has Assets of $100 in a checking account.
Person B has Assets of $90 in a checking account.
Loan recipient has Liability of $90 to the bank.
Bank has Assets of $190: $100 in Cash on hand, $90 in Loan to Person B
Bank has Liabilities of $190: $100 in checking account A, $90 in checking account B.
Central bank has liability of $100 in issued notes.
You're confusing cash with money. Money is whatever people are using as a medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value. The definition and its limits are argued over but there are quite clearly things beside central bank issued notes which are used this way. People use bank deposits this way - eg, GM pays Jim by bank transfer to build a car, Jim pays Bob by bank transfer to replace his roof, Bob pays GM by bank transfer for a car; no cash but still money. Several definitions get used when people wish to be precise about what they're talking about - M0 (circulating notes and coins only), M1 (demand deposits and circulating cash), etc. up to M5 - but in terms of the effect of the economy's money supply on the economy M0 is not what directly matters.
No.
A bank can only lend out the money they have.. they are still not creating money.
A bank can lend out part of its deposits to borrows even whilst the depositor still considers his deposit to be money.
Bank of America, for the purposes of this problem, has 1,000$ total in cash. So does USBank. The total amount of money in circulation between them is $2,000
I presume you mean that BoA and USB both have $1000 of cash from investors (ie, capital). It isn't circulating at this point, but that's not really important.
Bank of America opens an account with Person A and they deposit 500$. BoA now has 1,500$
BoA has $1000 capital in cash and $500 of reserves in cash. Person A has $500 in bank deposits. From what I remember bank reserves don't count because they're not circulating, so there's $1000 (USB capital) + $500 (person A's deposit) + $1000 (BoA capital) in M2 money in existence.
Person B comes along and gets a loan for 400$ afterwards. BoA now has $1,100 and an outstanding loan liability of 400$. They still have not created any money.
Person B deposits it in their bank account at USBank. USB now has $1,400. BoA has 1,100$. Note the fact that they still have not created any money, as we're still at 2000$ total money.
Person B has $400 in his account, which he considers money, can spend like money and acts like money in the economy. Person A has $500 in deposits to which the same applies. Both banks still have $1000 capital each in cash, BoA has $100 in reserves and USB $400. M0 is the same ($2500: $1000 in each bank plus $500 which was deposited), but M2 is now $2900. $400 of money in the form of bank deposits has been created by the banks.
Now Person B pays interest on their loan, let's say 5%, for the next 12 months. The person finally pays off the loan in one go at the end of that 12 month period. That money is coming from their employer. BoA gains 300$ in interest from an outside source plus the 500$ they originally loaned out.
To have any hope of keeping track of whether money has been created or not you'll need to use an example in which you keep a note of how much exists in the entire hypothetical economy at every point. We could say that person B's employer is the central bank who printed him a fresh $300, but that complicates the example because M0 is changing part way through. Instead, let's say that person B's employer is USB, who pay him out of their capital. We now have $2500 of cash in total still. USB has $700 in cash as capital, BoA has $1300 in capital (taking all of the interest as profit, person A has $500 in bank deposits and person B has 0. That's $2500, too - the additional $400 created by the banking system was destroyed when the loan was repaid.
Incidentally, this would still be true if person B never received any income, stole the loan and the loan was written off rather than repaid. USB would have $1000 in capital, BoA would have $600 in capital ($1000 - $400 in losses; the physical $400 stops being capital and starts being reserves, which can't circulate as money), person B (or whoever he gave it to) $400 and perso
No, it's a bank. Bank deposits are normally included in the definition of 'money'. They do it like this (if the reserve ratio is 10%):
Person A deposits $100 with his bank. Total money in existence: $100 (not counting bank reserves).
The bank lends $90 to someone who uses it to buy something from person B. Person B puts it in his bank. Total money in existence: $100 (in person A's account) + $90 (in person B's account) = $190.
The bank lends $81 of this new deposit and it's used to buy something from person C. Person C puts it in his account. Total money: $100+$90+$81
...
Total money at the end of the process: $100/10% = $1000.
If the central bank creates $100 of cash then $1000 pops in to existence (with some adjustment for cash people keep in their pocket). It's called the money multiplier.
No, the bank doesn't get off the hook if it has a wooden safe. You lend your money to the bank. Ownership of the money passes from you to the bank and the bank now has a debt to you. If the cash is stolen from the safe then it's the banks money that's stolen, not yours. The bank still has its debt to you. When you later make a withdrawal that satisfies the debt to you.
If it didn't work this way the bank wouldn't be allowed to lend your money to someone else....or, if it were, it'd be your losses if the lender didn't repay, not the bank's.
If the bank accepts instructions from someone other than you, you can show that and it's not your fault (you haven't handed out your PIN or been negligent in some other way) then the situation shouldn't be any different. The bank still owes you money. Compare it to this: a fraudster tricks you in to repaying your bank loan to him instead of the bank; do you still owe anything to the bank?
There are other problems with air travel, too. As well as the inevitable externalities (noise spread over a wider area near airports, pollution dropped over populated areas) they also require a huge land area for airports, and those airports are often not near to where people want to go. So you end up spending only a fraction of your time on the fast aeroplane and much more of it in terminals and on local transport. Besides....is there enough airspace for as densely populated and travelled area as this?
My right to free speech is more important than the right to privacy of a public individual being protected by an abusive court order in a completely different jurisdiction.
I don't believe you. Your right to name him is a complete irrelevance to you. It's not a serious political issue, it's not a serious social issue, it doesn't advance any public debate and it's not going to make the slightest difference to your life, or anyone else who isn't directly involved. This case isn't primarily about rights, it's about money and who is allowed to make it by doing what to whom. Some newspapers make a lot of money from following people around, photographing them in the street, out shopping, dining in restaurants, reporting on every first date or slip in dress sense, perpetually harassing and degrading the quality of life of some individuals. If anything, there should be more widespread access to privacy protection, for example through the Press Complaints Commission....just look at the way the much less wealthy woman involved has been all over the newspapers.
The case in the current article is much more serious, and this is one that's gone straight through the US courts (or so the article says, the BBC are saying it's not known if the court has agreed to the request). IMO threats or actual libel action and the crippling or impossible costs associated with it are a much more serious threat to genuine freedom of expression that limits on reporting individuals' private lives where there's no public interest justification at all. Not that the council bringing the action can sue for libel, which rather questions whether it's a legitimate use of public funds to do this in the first place.
The US attitude to this is inevitably going to win, to a point, because of the nature of the Internet and US arrogance on the issue. I'm more worried about certain other restrictions than celebrities' privacy.....things like restrictions on reporting rape victims' names, children's names, or restrictions on reporting until trials have been concluded to avoid tainting jurors and witnesses (not to mention innocent people's reputation, like Jo Yeates's landlord who was all over the press when he was arrested for her murder and is now having to sue half the nation's press).
The US won't have it all it's own way, though. Even the US has restrictions on speech and is not going to be happy at not being able to shut down everything from libellers and people who sell holidays to Cuba to Wikileaks and Jihadis. It's going to be a messy fight.
For distance sales something as simple as a button on the card/a device which displays a time-dependent number would make a huge difference. I already have a device for a company bank account which does this (but it uses a PIN as well). Merchants want to be able to perform repeat charges, do automated refunds, etc., but that could be done by issuing the merchant with a token only they can use during authorization.
PCI DSS is enforced via contracts....so I presume that VISA/Mastercard have a contract with the acquiring bank, the acquiring bank has a contract with the merchant and the liabilities get passed along the chain. You can bet the merchant will end up paying unless it's so obviously the bank's fault that they can't get away with claiming otherwise.
So bluntly, contrary to the massive stupidity run amok here, the killing was entirely lawful, even under US law. Period. End of discussion.
What about, umm, under Pakistani law? If a bunch of Pakistanis shot someone dead in the US it'd be quite legitimate for them to be tried in the US for murder, after extradition if necessary. Would this not apply to SEALs breaking Pakistani law? Would it not be just as big a breach of Pakistani sovereignty as if those hypothetical Pakistanis in the US were officially sanctioned and extradition was refused? Pakistani public opinion seems to think so and there's going to be a price to pay for the US.
Might I also suggest that this will be remember the next time some Polonium 210 turns up in some sushi, too? Not everyone in the world agrees on what 'terrorist' means.
That's both complicated and I don't think really pays its way enough because it still leaves your own computer as a potential attack point. It's also unappealing to cardholders and merchants.
But you're certainly right that card numbers are inadequate. Not only is there one vulnerable number for both initial charges and later recurring charges, but it's also the same one needed for refunds and the same one used to even just identify the account, eg, after a chargeback or for detecting suspicious reuse of a signle card. Seven of the digits aren't even random!
Possibly it could be mitigated a bit less completely, more simply and in a way a bit more compatible with existing software by having the response to the initial authorization request return an extra field. This could be, say, the issuer ID, an account identifier other than the PAN, the merchant ID, plus a signature generated using the issuer's private key. Then you can use that for all future activity involving the card. You don't have to store the number at all.
To complete the picture replace CV2 with something SecurID like or go the whole hog and build in a PIN entry device (but I bet wear on the keys will be a giveaway).
Banks don't care that much, though, because they don't pay for much of the fraud but do pay for the anti-fraud measures. It's only if cardholders and merchants start to abandon them that they'll care.
Can it ever be so simple? Obviously the product manager has to know the cost of adding things to his product, but software (and presumably almost anything else) is more complicated than 'the cost of x is y'. Different functionality is interdependent. Adopting one architecture may make some things easier and rule out others. Taking the product in one direction may inhibit it from doing things in another area, either at a technical level or a product level (everything from UIs containing too much to the marketing ceasing to be coherent). Adopting and presenting one conceptual structure to your users and then later trying to add now-demanded features which don't fit properly makes your product difficult to understand, both for your customers and developers.
In short, good product managers need to understand the overall technical effects of their decisions because it's going to affect the future options for their product. Is it possible to do that without a conceptual-level understanding of the technology?
You missed 'luck'. What happens when your data centre catches fire, has an Internet outage or has it's generators fail when the power goes out? You can use multiple data centres, but you can do that with AWS, too, and you wouldn't have been affected. I've known two of those three things happen to our data centre in London.
RackSpace's cloud is not PCI DSS compliant, whereas Amazon's is. If you process credit cards then you can't do it in RackSpace's cloud (although you can on their dedicated servers). IIRC, Verizon's is, though. Of course, depending on what you do, it's not necessarily very straightforward to replicate your systems across the two and there's a lot of extra cost.
I agree with the organization-as-a-point-of-failure argument, though. Never mind court orders, you could also suffer from simple administrative mess-ups (like someone not paying the bill or some sort of dispute over money owed or terms of service) or the compromise of your account with them.
No, the goal should be more than efficiency. If, someday, we have cars that are quiet and produce no local emissions of harmful or unpleasant chemicals whilst being cheap enough to be as widely affordable as current cars then it'd be unreasonable not to gradually exclude the current stinking, noisy and poisonous old technology from major population centres. Even if they're more fun to drive or you like the way everyone can hear you've got a car that cost a lot of money. Cars are, alas, pretty much indispensable, but once enough of them are together in one place the result is quite a disgusting environment.
They still (often) don't. in many areas, anyway. It's all about signalling. Essentially that means using the fact that you could be bothered to get a degree as a signal that you're capable and motivated. The more people that do this - and government these days seems to love 'widening access', at least in the UK - the more degraded the signal, so MScs will be the new BScs, and so on.
There are a lot of skills necessary for a successful software project or product. Domain knowledge is one of them. Occasionally the domain is going to be CS - if you're writing a compiler, voice or image recognition, a game rendering engine or an OS, maybe - and you need someone with skills in those areas that go rather beyond an undergraduate CS degree. Sometimes it'll be physics, or chemistry, or mathematical modelling, or (far more often) will be in an area where the domain knowledge doesn't require any advanced academic knowledge at all.
You need to be good at the detailed, rigorous logical thought to write code and produce designs that work. If you aren't capable of some serious maths then you aren't capable of that, but I don't believe that studying it to an ever more advanced level will actually make you better at it (compared to spending your time writing code). I think having maths is more of a signal that you'll be good at software development rather than a cause (unless, of course, you're working on a project where maths is very solidly in the problem domain).
To have a successful project you're almost certainly going to have to have some skill in interaction design in your team. You're going to need to be able to define a product that actually solves the problem. You're going to have to manage the process itself adequately. These things are hard and important, even if many CS geeks think of them as 'lesser' skills even if the first and last, at least, can be the subject of some serious teaching and research. More projects fail because of these than because of a failure of the CS.
My own degree is in economics and management (though I've learnt a lot on my own, both before and afterwards, about CS and other things). It probably wasn't a perfect fit for me, but there was no shortage of maths in it either (calculus and optimization, lots of statistics, some graph algorithms - on pieces of paper! - and linear programming). I couldn't write the software for, say, a military radar without some serious extra study, but nor could a CS graduate. I've looked at/read/watched lectures from parts of some CS courses and been mostly disappointed by the level and content. It's either just obvious to an experienced software developer, or seems irrelevant, or is vastly too low a level to be useful for anything. Maths, economics, physics and psychology have always been far more interesting by comparison, all of the reading I've done which has made me better at my job has been in HCI, project management or software engineering and I don't think I've ever been less good at what I do for not having an undergraduate CS degree.
Because the speakers in phones are always inadequate and people respond to not being able to hear very well by talking louder. That's just fine for normal conversations, not so fine on a phone.
The captain has every right to sink his own damn ship if he darn well pleases.
It isn't usually the captain's own ship. He probably either has his own manager to answer to, or he has to answer to shareholders. They in turn probably care more about results than Facebook use.
To do that it at least needs to be fully and evenly enforced. Otherwise reasonable use can be tolerated and treated leniently until there's someone a manager doesn't want or like - then it suddenly becomes a firing matter. And then you get sued, for sexual/racial/age/religious/disability/whateverelsethereis discrimination (or flat out unfair dismissal, in this country anyway). Besides, it's not really sensible - in many cases it's going to cost you an awful lot of money and disruption to find someone new, so if something less is effective it's a better choice. Or you can just live with it - being very controlling of your employees is always going to come at a cost.
There's no shortage of things worth doing out there - always someone who'd like their house cleaned, or to have a massage, or a have a wall painted or their dog walked. People don't end up jobless because there's nothing worth doing any more, they end up jobless because the economy has failed to arrange for useful things to be done and for someone to be given the right incentives to do it. That doesn't mean it's easy to solve, but having people do something fundamentally pointless instead isn't going to get you there.
I'm in the UK so it may be different, but here it's entirely possible for a majority owner to sell their stake to a buyer without the minority owners being included. (This if for private limited companies, it'd be quite different if it's listed). Being left as, say, a 10% owner in a company owned 90% by someone else is not too good. The 90% owner could, for example, issue lots of new shares to themselves for very little money and dilute you, or transfer money out of the business through specially priced contracts with other companies in the same group, or by paying salary to themselves, rather than through dividends. Or maybe you have 2% and it's easier to buy you out properly than play tricks and lose staff morale. A minority stake in a company owned by a hostile majority shareholder may turn out to be worth whatever that shareholder wants it to be worth.
If you're investing in a private limited company you should form a shareholders' agreement between all the shareholders and the company. This should specify that the majority owner(s) must not sell to a buyer without the minority shareholders being offered the same terms. It may also specify, in exchange, that the minority shareholders must agree to sell in these circumstances. It should do a lot of other things, too - such as specifying what happens if an employee leaves, limiting rights to issue new shares without you being offered them in proportion on the same terms and a whole bunch of other things. It should also say how many shares there actually are. Look them up. They'll be different in the US but I'd be very surprised if they didn't exist. Beware, though - enforcement isn't automatic and they may just go ahead and ignore it.
I'd say that shares in a private company are not worth much unless you have some power to defend them - probably by being important to the company in a way other than just your shareholding. If your day to day relationship to the company remains one of employee then expect to be treated like one.
Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.
How much of a danger of doing what? A small chance of touching up a secretary? A moderate chance of raping a badger? A 90% chance of speeding? How about being an atheist legally challenging prevailing social values in an ultra-Christian part of the US? How are you going to measure this?
Many people who want to believe them will believe them. Most especially, many US or Israel hating Iranians will. Politicians care more about domestic political opinion than foreigners' opinions; they're almost certainly playing to the domestic audience. There's nothing like an outside threat the bring people behind a government.
And bicycles. People don't generally look for bicycles before crossing the road unless they live somewhere where there are a LOT of them. Not as dangerous, but still able to ruin your day.
Slashdot Mirror
The bank's liabilities aren't negative money - they don't reduce the amount of 'stuff fitting the definition of money' which is circulating in the economy because they don't reduce person A's or pe rson B's ability to use their bank account balances as money.
Glodime is also right, you've missed some liabilities - but he's missed some, too. The central bank has a liability of $100 which appeared when it issued the cash The total will add to zero if you get it right. In the old days if you took your notes to the central bank and demanded payment they'd give you gold. Nowadays they'll pay you in legal tender :) The assets and liabilities created look
like this:
100+90-90+190-190-100 = 0
You're confusing cash with money. Money is whatever people are using as a medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value. The definition and its limits are argued over but there are quite clearly things beside central bank issued notes which are used this way. People use bank deposits this way - eg, GM pays Jim by bank transfer to build a car, Jim pays Bob by bank transfer to replace his roof, Bob pays GM by bank transfer for a car; no cash but still money. Several definitions get used when people wish to be precise about what they're talking about - M0 (circulating notes and coins only), M1 (demand deposits and circulating cash), etc. up to M5 - but in terms of the effect of the economy's money supply on the economy M0 is not what directly matters.
No.
A bank can only lend out the money they have.. they are still not creating money.
A bank can lend out part of its deposits to borrows even whilst the depositor still considers his deposit to be money.
Bank of America, for the purposes of this problem, has 1,000$ total in cash. So does USBank. The total amount of money in circulation between them is $2,000
I presume you mean that BoA and USB both have $1000 of cash from investors (ie, capital). It isn't circulating at this point, but that's not really important.
Bank of America opens an account with Person A and they deposit 500$. BoA now has 1,500$
BoA has $1000 capital in cash and $500 of reserves in cash. Person A has $500 in bank deposits. From what I remember bank reserves don't count because they're not circulating, so there's $1000 (USB capital) + $500 (person A's deposit) + $1000 (BoA capital) in M2 money in existence.
Person B comes along and gets a loan for 400$ afterwards. BoA now has $1,100 and an outstanding loan liability of 400$. They still have not created any money.
Person B deposits it in their bank account at USBank. USB now has $1,400. BoA has 1,100$. Note the fact that they still have not created any money, as we're still at 2000$ total money.
Person B has $400 in his account, which he considers money, can spend like money and acts like money in the economy. Person A has $500 in deposits to which the same applies. Both banks still have $1000 capital each in cash, BoA has $100 in reserves and USB $400. M0 is the same ($2500: $1000 in each bank plus $500 which was deposited), but M2 is now $2900. $400 of money in the form of bank deposits has been created by the banks.
Now Person B pays interest on their loan, let's say 5%, for the next 12 months. The person finally pays off the loan in one go at the end of that 12 month period. That money is coming from their employer. BoA gains 300$ in interest from an outside source plus the 500$ they originally loaned out.
To have any hope of keeping track of whether money has been created or not you'll need to use an example in which you keep a note of how much exists in the entire hypothetical economy at every point. We could say that person B's employer is the central bank who printed him a fresh $300, but that complicates the example because M0 is changing part way through. Instead, let's say that person B's employer is USB, who pay him out of their capital. We now have $2500 of cash in total still. USB has $700 in cash as capital, BoA has $1300 in capital (taking all of the interest as profit, person A has $500 in bank deposits and person B has 0. That's $2500, too - the additional $400 created by the banking system was destroyed when the loan was repaid.
Incidentally, this would still be true if person B never received any income, stole the loan and the loan was written off rather than repaid. USB would have $1000 in capital, BoA would have $600 in capital ($1000 - $400 in losses; the physical $400 stops being capital and starts being reserves, which can't circulate as money), person B (or whoever he gave it to) $400 and perso
No, it's a bank. Bank deposits are normally included in the definition of 'money'. They do it like this (if the reserve ratio is 10%):
If the central bank creates $100 of cash then $1000 pops in to existence (with some adjustment for cash people keep in their pocket). It's called the money multiplier.
No, the bank doesn't get off the hook if it has a wooden safe. You lend your money to the bank. Ownership of the money passes from you to the bank and the bank now has a debt to you. If the cash is stolen from the safe then it's the banks money that's stolen, not yours. The bank still has its debt to you. When you later make a withdrawal that satisfies the debt to you.
If it didn't work this way the bank wouldn't be allowed to lend your money to someone else....or, if it were, it'd be your losses if the lender didn't repay, not the bank's.
If the bank accepts instructions from someone other than you, you can show that and it's not your fault (you haven't handed out your PIN or been negligent in some other way) then the situation shouldn't be any different. The bank still owes you money. Compare it to this: a fraudster tricks you in to repaying your bank loan to him instead of the bank; do you still owe anything to the bank?
There are other problems with air travel, too. As well as the inevitable externalities (noise spread over a wider area near airports, pollution dropped over populated areas) they also require a huge land area for airports, and those airports are often not near to where people want to go. So you end up spending only a fraction of your time on the fast aeroplane and much more of it in terminals and on local transport. Besides....is there enough airspace for as densely populated and travelled area as this?
I don't believe you. Your right to name him is a complete irrelevance to you. It's not a serious political issue, it's not a serious social issue, it doesn't advance any public debate and it's not going to make the slightest difference to your life, or anyone else who isn't directly involved. This case isn't primarily about rights, it's about money and who is allowed to make it by doing what to whom. Some newspapers make a lot of money from following people around, photographing them in the street, out shopping, dining in restaurants, reporting on every first date or slip in dress sense, perpetually harassing and degrading the quality of life of some individuals. If anything, there should be more widespread access to privacy protection, for example through the Press Complaints Commission....just look at the way the much less wealthy woman involved has been all over the newspapers.
The case in the current article is much more serious, and this is one that's gone straight through the US courts (or so the article says, the BBC are saying it's not known if the court has agreed to the request). IMO threats or actual libel action and the crippling or impossible costs associated with it are a much more serious threat to genuine freedom of expression that limits on reporting individuals' private lives where there's no public interest justification at all. Not that the council bringing the action can sue for libel, which rather questions whether it's a legitimate use of public funds to do this in the first place.
The US attitude to this is inevitably going to win, to a point, because of the nature of the Internet and US arrogance on the issue. I'm more worried about certain other restrictions than celebrities' privacy.....things like restrictions on reporting rape victims' names, children's names, or restrictions on reporting until trials have been concluded to avoid tainting jurors and witnesses (not to mention innocent people's reputation, like Jo Yeates's landlord who was all over the press when he was arrested for her murder and is now having to sue half the nation's press).
The US won't have it all it's own way, though. Even the US has restrictions on speech and is not going to be happy at not being able to shut down everything from libellers and people who sell holidays to Cuba to Wikileaks and Jihadis. It's going to be a messy fight.
Isn't that roughly what Chip and PIN does?
For distance sales something as simple as a button on the card/a device which displays a time-dependent number would make a huge difference. I already have a device for a company bank account which does this (but it uses a PIN as well). Merchants want to be able to perform repeat charges, do automated refunds, etc., but that could be done by issuing the merchant with a token only they can use during authorization.
PCI DSS is enforced via contracts....so I presume that VISA/Mastercard have a contract with the acquiring bank, the acquiring bank has a contract with the merchant and the liabilities get passed along the chain. You can bet the merchant will end up paying unless it's so obviously the bank's fault that they can't get away with claiming otherwise.
So bluntly, contrary to the massive stupidity run amok here, the killing was entirely lawful, even under US law. Period. End of discussion.
What about, umm, under Pakistani law? If a bunch of Pakistanis shot someone dead in the US it'd be quite legitimate for them to be tried in the US for murder, after extradition if necessary. Would this not apply to SEALs breaking Pakistani law? Would it not be just as big a breach of Pakistani sovereignty as if those hypothetical Pakistanis in the US were officially sanctioned and extradition was refused? Pakistani public opinion seems to think so and there's going to be a price to pay for the US.
Might I also suggest that this will be remember the next time some Polonium 210 turns up in some sushi, too? Not everyone in the world agrees on what 'terrorist' means.
That's both complicated and I don't think really pays its way enough because it still leaves your own computer as a potential attack point. It's also unappealing to cardholders and merchants.
But you're certainly right that card numbers are inadequate. Not only is there one vulnerable number for both initial charges and later recurring charges, but it's also the same one needed for refunds and the same one used to even just identify the account, eg, after a chargeback or for detecting suspicious reuse of a signle card. Seven of the digits aren't even random!
Possibly it could be mitigated a bit less completely, more simply and in a way a bit more compatible with existing software by having the response to the initial authorization request return an extra field. This could be, say, the issuer ID, an account identifier other than the PAN, the merchant ID, plus a signature generated using the issuer's private key. Then you can use that for all future activity involving the card. You don't have to store the number at all.
To complete the picture replace CV2 with something SecurID like or go the whole hog and build in a PIN entry device (but I bet wear on the keys will be a giveaway).
Banks don't care that much, though, because they don't pay for much of the fraud but do pay for the anti-fraud measures. It's only if cardholders and merchants start to abandon them that they'll care.
In short, good product managers need to understand the overall technical effects of their decisions because it's going to affect the future options for their product. Is it possible to do that without a conceptual-level understanding of the technology?
You missed 'luck'. What happens when your data centre catches fire, has an Internet outage or has it's generators fail when the power goes out? You can use multiple data centres, but you can do that with AWS, too, and you wouldn't have been affected. I've known two of those three things happen to our data centre in London.
RackSpace's cloud is not PCI DSS compliant, whereas Amazon's is. If you process credit cards then you can't do it in RackSpace's cloud (although you can on their dedicated servers). IIRC, Verizon's is, though. Of course, depending on what you do, it's not necessarily very straightforward to replicate your systems across the two and there's a lot of extra cost. I agree with the organization-as-a-point-of-failure argument, though. Never mind court orders, you could also suffer from simple administrative mess-ups (like someone not paying the bill or some sort of dispute over money owed or terms of service) or the compromise of your account with them.
No, the goal should be more than efficiency. If, someday, we have cars that are quiet and produce no local emissions of harmful or unpleasant chemicals whilst being cheap enough to be as widely affordable as current cars then it'd be unreasonable not to gradually exclude the current stinking, noisy and poisonous old technology from major population centres. Even if they're more fun to drive or you like the way everyone can hear you've got a car that cost a lot of money. Cars are, alas, pretty much indispensable, but once enough of them are together in one place the result is quite a disgusting environment.
They still (often) don't. in many areas, anyway. It's all about signalling. Essentially that means using the fact that you could be bothered to get a degree as a signal that you're capable and motivated. The more people that do this - and government these days seems to love 'widening access', at least in the UK - the more degraded the signal, so MScs will be the new BScs, and so on.
I agree
There are a lot of skills necessary for a successful software project or product. Domain knowledge is one of them. Occasionally the domain is going to be CS - if you're writing a compiler, voice or image recognition, a game rendering engine or an OS, maybe - and you need someone with skills in those areas that go rather beyond an undergraduate CS degree. Sometimes it'll be physics, or chemistry, or mathematical modelling, or (far more often) will be in an area where the domain knowledge doesn't require any advanced academic knowledge at all.
You need to be good at the detailed, rigorous logical thought to write code and produce designs that work. If you aren't capable of some serious maths then you aren't capable of that, but I don't believe that studying it to an ever more advanced level will actually make you better at it (compared to spending your time writing code). I think having maths is more of a signal that you'll be good at software development rather than a cause (unless, of course, you're working on a project where maths is very solidly in the problem domain).
To have a successful project you're almost certainly going to have to have some skill in interaction design in your team. You're going to need to be able to define a product that actually solves the problem. You're going to have to manage the process itself adequately. These things are hard and important, even if many CS geeks think of them as 'lesser' skills even if the first and last, at least, can be the subject of some serious teaching and research. More projects fail because of these than because of a failure of the CS.
My own degree is in economics and management (though I've learnt a lot on my own, both before and afterwards, about CS and other things). It probably wasn't a perfect fit for me, but there was no shortage of maths in it either (calculus and optimization, lots of statistics, some graph algorithms - on pieces of paper! - and linear programming). I couldn't write the software for, say, a military radar without some serious extra study, but nor could a CS graduate. I've looked at/read/watched lectures from parts of some CS courses and been mostly disappointed by the level and content. It's either just obvious to an experienced software developer, or seems irrelevant, or is vastly too low a level to be useful for anything. Maths, economics, physics and psychology have always been far more interesting by comparison, all of the reading I've done which has made me better at my job has been in HCI, project management or software engineering and I don't think I've ever been less good at what I do for not having an undergraduate CS degree.
Because the speakers in phones are always inadequate and people respond to not being able to hear very well by talking louder. That's just fine for normal conversations, not so fine on a phone.
The captain has every right to sink his own damn ship if he darn well pleases.
It isn't usually the captain's own ship. He probably either has his own manager to answer to, or he has to answer to shareholders. They in turn probably care more about results than Facebook use.
To do that it at least needs to be fully and evenly enforced. Otherwise reasonable use can be tolerated and treated leniently until there's someone a manager doesn't want or like - then it suddenly becomes a firing matter. And then you get sued, for sexual/racial/age/religious/disability/whateverelsethereis discrimination (or flat out unfair dismissal, in this country anyway). Besides, it's not really sensible - in many cases it's going to cost you an awful lot of money and disruption to find someone new, so if something less is effective it's a better choice. Or you can just live with it - being very controlling of your employees is always going to come at a cost.
There's no shortage of things worth doing out there - always someone who'd like their house cleaned, or to have a massage, or a have a wall painted or their dog walked. People don't end up jobless because there's nothing worth doing any more, they end up jobless because the economy has failed to arrange for useful things to be done and for someone to be given the right incentives to do it. That doesn't mean it's easy to solve, but having people do something fundamentally pointless instead isn't going to get you there.
I'm in the UK so it may be different, but here it's entirely possible for a majority owner to sell their stake to a buyer without the minority owners being included. (This if for private limited companies, it'd be quite different if it's listed). Being left as, say, a 10% owner in a company owned 90% by someone else is not too good. The 90% owner could, for example, issue lots of new shares to themselves for very little money and dilute you, or transfer money out of the business through specially priced contracts with other companies in the same group, or by paying salary to themselves, rather than through dividends. Or maybe you have 2% and it's easier to buy you out properly than play tricks and lose staff morale. A minority stake in a company owned by a hostile majority shareholder may turn out to be worth whatever that shareholder wants it to be worth.
If you're investing in a private limited company you should form a shareholders' agreement between all the shareholders and the company. This should specify that the majority owner(s) must not sell to a buyer without the minority shareholders being offered the same terms. It may also specify, in exchange, that the minority shareholders must agree to sell in these circumstances. It should do a lot of other things, too - such as specifying what happens if an employee leaves, limiting rights to issue new shares without you being offered them in proportion on the same terms and a whole bunch of other things. It should also say how many shares there actually are. Look them up. They'll be different in the US but I'd be very surprised if they didn't exist. Beware, though - enforcement isn't automatic and they may just go ahead and ignore it.
I'd say that shares in a private company are not worth much unless you have some power to defend them - probably by being important to the company in a way other than just your shareholding. If your day to day relationship to the company remains one of employee then expect to be treated like one.
Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.
How much of a danger of doing what? A small chance of touching up a secretary? A moderate chance of raping a badger? A 90% chance of speeding? How about being an atheist legally challenging prevailing social values in an ultra-Christian part of the US? How are you going to measure this?
Many people who want to believe them will believe them. Most especially, many US or Israel hating Iranians will. Politicians care more about domestic political opinion than foreigners' opinions; they're almost certainly playing to the domestic audience. There's nothing like an outside threat the bring people behind a government.
And bicycles. People don't generally look for bicycles before crossing the road unless they live somewhere where there are a LOT of them. Not as dangerous, but still able to ruin your day.
You'd get very confused - there was no 0 AD (or BC for that matter).
Obviously he meant the year 173.