Any report that lists the Fins as the 5th happiest people in the world is pure BS.
There a no more depressed and grumpy people anywhere. Comes from living on the tundra with no sun but plenty of Vodka for 3 months every year.
I call shenanigans on the report. Lets put suicide rate alongside this list for good laughs all around.
Sounds like a valid point - although the suicide rates of Syria and Saudi Arabia are (reportedly) the lowest in the world and I'm fairly sure they aren't going to be the happiest countries in the world by any measure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
And yet, the happiest people in the world are in countries where taxes are high and the governments are 'involved' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your analysis is quite superficial. A caveat you should have learned in Econ 101: "all other things being equal". In other words things are very different between the US and those top ranking countries. Perhaps one of those factors you are failing to consider is the corruption of the government, again, ponder the corruption that our tax code enables. Do those other countries have such a comparably complicated tax code that is a massive vehicle for political paybacks and punishment, do they rely more on a VAT, etc.
My analysis was as deep as it needed to be to make my point. If you feel like delving into it further, then go right ahead but my point has been made and you aren't contesting it.
I'd also question the contribution to society made by most people's employment.
I reckon 10% of employees don't even contribute to their employers, let alone society. If they did absolutely nothing, it would be a bonus - other people could do something useful rather than fixing their fucked-up shit.
You're making me feel guilty for reading/. at work now.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
Speak of rent, I'm wondering how advocates of basic income intend to deal with people outbidding one another for property. The reason that places like New York or San Francisco are so expensive is because lots of people are essentially outbidding one another on rent or property, putting upward pressure on the prices. Now, think about how adding that much more income to their spending power is going to impact that. What happens when the rent then exceeds what somebody on this basic income can afford?
I know what you're thinking: Price controls, or maybe even go Karl Marx and just seize their property in the name of humanity and give it away. You still haven't solved the ultimate problem that an economy ultimately sorts out: How you allocate scarce resources. Land, and by extension, real estate, is a finite resource. There's only so many people that you can squeeze into New York City. So how do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't? Some people talk about how they have a right to live in New York City, no matter how much rent costs. That's fine, but what are you going to do when people who think they have the right to live there exceeds the population capacity of the city? Something, somewhere has to give. The problem is even worse in San Francisco, because they (through the democratic process) won't allow anybody to build any additional housing.
People migrate to cities to find work. With a basic income, a lot of people will no longer want to or need to live in a city to find (probably shitty) work just to make ends meet, which will lower demand for the supply of living space in turn lowering price for that living space.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
And yet, the happiest people in the world are in countries where taxes are high and the governments are 'involved' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
First, the basic income replaces a lot of other programs, so it isn't as expensive as it looks. It's far cheaper to administer than welfare programs. Second, we raise taxes to cover the rest. Everybody's taxable income goes up.
Which would require a tax overhaul that the rich and the corporations will fight, lobby against and, failing that, move their wealth and themselves to a more 'tax friendly' country.
I htink we were collectively distracted by the poor term "the 1%". The actual 1%, the moderately wealthy, the successful doctors and dentists and lawyers and small business owners, they aren't the issue here. The 1% aren't the people in the Panama Papers.
We should instead be upset at "the richest 100 families", who IMO have been causing so many problems. In some ways, the difference between "ideal capitalism" and "capitalism as practiced in the US" is the difference between the 1% and the richest 100 families.
I recently helped an elderly family member get tested, fitted, etc for hearing aids at an audiology office. Sure, it seems like a lot of money. But the $2,400 covers the hearing aid for three years of whatever you might happen to do to it. That breaks down to $800 per year, or less than $70 per month (per ear). That's less than a cable bill, and less than what most people - even elderly drivers - spend on gas for their cars for a month.
That said, there is one health care plan that does cover hearing aids 100% that I am aware of - the VA. I know several people who have gotten their hearing aids for free through them and they've been very happy with it.
Several health insurance plans also offer a small rebate to the customer after they purchase them. The same elderly family member I mentioned before got $500 back from these, and is eligible to do that every 3 years. While I'm not in need of them myself I believe my health insurance plan has a similar arrangement.
That difference may not play so much here in Europe where consumer electronics have a minimum two year guarantee by law. Consumer protection law that America does not prioritize because corporate profits are more important. http://europa.eu/youreurope/ci...
On the other hand, as medical coverage here tends to be worlds better than in the US it's probably not an issue to get hearing aids here almost for free.
Nearly everything the FBI says so far is a lie. Why should I believe this statement?
Because it's not limited. "paid more than $1 million" could be anything above a million. There is no upper limit.
So why not say something like this? It could have been 10 million or 100 million. There's no lie in the statement and yet most people will assume that 'more than a million' means something like 1.2 million which is probably palatable to the great milling masses of sheep-ass taxpayers.
Problem two is where a vendor accidentally or deliberately double taps the card. (so never let it out of your sight).
????
I thought the tap cards you're supposed to be the one tapping the reader, not handing it over to the vendor. (This was the biggest change when Canada moved from swipe to chip - everyone handed their card over, the cashier swiped it, and then had to insert it into the chip reader in front of you).
I always thought that was one of the things with the new EMV system - the only person to touch the card is the card holder - if it's chip, they insert it in the reader (if you can find the bloody slot), if it's tap, you tap it yourself. You don't hand over the card at all.
Even in restaurants now they bring the terminal to you rather than you stick the card in for them to swipe it for you.
Not always the case - in another post in this thread I reference a fast food chain here in Paris called Cojean where a line of cashiers takes cards from lines of customers and it's the cashiers doing the tapping. They do ask if they can, but then it's them that does it.
The fraud is not trivially spotted unless one scrutinizes every transaction on one's statement, which I (and many if not most people) do not. The bank certainly doesn't scrutinize it for me.
The bank most definitely does scrutinize it for you. Constantly. They have entire departments dedicated to it. You're just confusing *where* the scrutinisation is taking place. It's not easily located in your bank statement, it's easily located on the "merchant's". Hence why I said you'll often never know as the bank resolves it itself.
I had a transaction cancelled due to fraud one day and I called up the (Australian, may be different in the EU) bank about it. Their fraud department told me why it was rejected and I asked if it happens often and they said they can send me a summary. I was actually blown away at the number of fraudulent transactions which I never knew happening in my account which banks automatically deal with as they disqualify merchants and transactions. For me it was in the order of 1 transaction per 2 years on a card that has never been used online, and 2 transactions per year on a card which has. I expected a one line answer, not a two page document covering my history of being a bank customer.
Interesting and good to know, thank you. That being said, I prefer nonetheless to have to use my pin for transactions -
They aren't as big problems as you think. This kind of fraud is actually trivially spotted and even as a victim from it you'll often never know as the bank resolves it itself.
As for a vendor accidentally keying in the amount a second time, accidentally tapping a second time, and accidentally printing a second receipt.... wait why is the vendor tapping again? What scenario do you actually hand your card to someone these days?
The fraud is not trivially spotted unless one scrutinizes every transaction on one's statement, which I (and many if not most people) do not. The bank certainly doesn't scrutinize it for me.
There are certainly places where the vendor does the transaction. One is called Cojean, a popular chain restaurant here in Paris (and probably elsewhere) and they do the tapping - for a lot of people who obviously think nothing of handing their cards over. There is no option of doing it oneself at this chain.
I'm a US citizen living outside the US. Let me tell you that these chip cards are a nightmare for us. They work about 50% of the time, with no rhyme or reason as to when they'll work or why. Trying the card a second time sometimes works. Sometimes the machines ask for PIN codes when there isn't one, other times not. When this happens, I can enter any random number and the transaction goes through. A card will work at a particular gas station one day, then not the next, then works again the following day. The cards will usually work in one store, or almost never work in another store.
Locals with the new machines have no idea what they're doing. Sometimes they swipe cards with no magnetic stripe. Sometimes they pull the card out before the transaction is done. Sometimes they argue with me telling me it's a debit card when it's a credit card.
And in all cases, whenever the card doesn't work at a purchase, the error message is "declined".
My chip Visa ATM cards work in almost no machines here, while the magnetic stripe cards did. Some give the wrong menu options on ATM machines, allowing "savings account" as the only option when I have only a checking account. Others work or don't at random. The error message is useless. Or sometimes I get different error messages depending on whether I select english or spanish at the ATM. In general, I have about a 1 in 5 chance of extracting some amount of money from a machine. When I call the customer support number on the back of the card, they swear up and down the card works just fine.
I'm slowly removing myself from a reliance on banks and even money in general. These idiotic chip cards are only encouraging me to hasten my exit.
I'm convinced this is about 10% pilot error at the point of sale, and 90% a technical problem on the bank servers in the US. The development was probably outsourced to the lowest bidding indian consulting firm.
I've been living outside the US for almost 15 years and with various banks and cards I have never experienced any of the problems you're having.
Well unfortunately the US took the half-assed approach of moving to chip, but still requiring signature. Everywhere else it's chip + PIN. By the time you've typed the 4-6 digits of your PIN, the chip reading part of it is generally done and the whole transaction is generally quicker than the whole 'cashier hands you annoying piece of paper and a pen and you sign' rigmarole.
Even better, most places outside the US these days have contactless payments available at most merchants. For smaller amounts ($100, $50, varies by country), tap your card on the reader and you're done. Takes literally 1 second.
20 Euros typically.
The problem is that there are portable card readers that scammers take into crowds (ie metro) and scan wallets and purses randomly, taking less than 20 euros each time - no authentication and unless the target is checking their statements carefully they never even notice.
Problem two is where a vendor accidentally or deliberately double taps the card. (so never let it out of your sight).
I've told my bank to remove this service because I prefer to take the few extra seconds to put in my pin code and retain control.
The vendors don't mind because the banks actually charge an extra per month fee as well as a transaction fee for the contactless transaction.
"most nudity that is porn portrays abusive behavior"
Disagree. I don't know what you or your clients watch but that does not describe most of the porn that I've seen.
Now, if people go looking for fucked up porn they're going to find it but most porn is just naked people having normal, if well lighted, sex.
Abuse occurs in so many more ways than physical violence. In a different post on this thread, I already posted a serious of examples that occur frequently in porn that are abusive, even though we often don't even realize it. Normal, naked people having sex, is not porn. However, most porn is not simply normal naked people having sex. That is a conditioned response to think it is.
That said, if one really does enjoy watching normal naked people having sex, ie voyeurism, that isn't really healthy habit, and should be addressed. Because research shows that even if what they are now watching isn't porn, eventually, to get the same gratification, it eventually will be. Just like there is a state between having a normal blood sugar and being diabetic (called pre-diabetic), so, too, with porn. We just don't have a universal term to describe it yet.
(Note: this is the case for most addicitons, we call people heavy drinkers and when it is heavy enough, they are alcoholics. Or they use drugs recreationally but if they recreate too much, they are addicts, etc. In other words, it is a matter of degree which determines if there is a problem or not, but eventually, almost all, "almost addictions" become full blown addictions. Porn is no exception and even triggers chemical responses in the brain as chemical dependency does).
Well how about you post the reference to your 'serious' of examples then, so I can have a look ?
How do you figure that voyeurism isn't healthy? Of course actually having sex is better but if you can't, then why not get off watching other people having nice sex.
I disagree about your idea where a bit of porn leads to overuse like use of alcohol leads to alcoholism. I've been using porn for rather a long time and it has never negatively affected my life, my relationships, my normal sex life, my happiness or my health.
Porn triggers reactions in the brain because it's sex. Sex triggers reactions in the brain. Overhearing strangers in the next hotel room having (normal) sex is going to trigger reactions in the brain in the same exact way. And you know what? There's nothing at all wrong with this. It's how humans are and how we reproduce normally. Hearing sex, seeing a nice body, being touched, kissed, touching oneself are all going to trigger the same responses in the brain.
So no, use of porn does not lead to being fucked up. Fucked up people using porn leads to fucked up people being fucked up which will be the case whether or not porn is involved.
The reality is that people, including young people, now and forever going forward are going to constantly be exposed to nudity and sex because that's the world most of us live in (the Quakers being a notable exception). The way to handle this is not to say 'porn is bad' but to say 'bad porn is bad' in the same way that taking medicine for a headache is not bad but taking cocaine because we're tired is bad. Educate young people about what is good and what is abnormal and you'll get a lot further, in reality, than just trying to eliminate it (which is impossible in this day and age).
Aliens would be the biggest thing to happen to NASA ever. It would mean an unlimited budget and hiding any alien encounter would be against their best interests.
A well known event that happens every year in Europe is when people from Belgium and the Netherlands pack their stuff in their cars and migrate through Germany to southern Europe. This pisses of the Germans as their autobahns are stock full of cars... how will they continue to do this with cars that only move a few hundred km between recharges?
What I want to know is if any supporter of major terrorist organizations has ever labelled their money transfer as "ISIS Donation"/"Bomb Fund"/"Al-Qaeda". Just give me one person in the history of the world stupid enough to do that, and there is at least some argument to me made for this ridiculous sounding policy.
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
China and / or Russia would step up in a heartbeat.
We as a country have lost our balls somewhere and I seriously doubt we're going to find them in this little spat.
Can I say the RRS It's Bloody Cold Here has the ring of a Culture ship and would make a nice epitaph for one of the finest science fiction authors of the last fifty years. Given the poll options though, I'd like to suggest the GCU Experiencing a Significant Gravitas Shortfall instead.
Or perhaps "Experiencing a Significant Excess of Gravitis" which might also avoid a lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Any report that lists the Fins as the 5th happiest people in the world is pure BS.
There a no more depressed and grumpy people anywhere. Comes from living on the tundra with no sun but plenty of Vodka for 3 months every year.
I call shenanigans on the report. Lets put suicide rate alongside this list for good laughs all around.
Sounds like a valid point - although the suicide rates of Syria and Saudi Arabia are (reportedly) the lowest in the world and I'm fairly sure they aren't going to be the happiest countries in the world by any measure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about ... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
And yet, the happiest people in the world are in countries where taxes are high and the governments are 'involved' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your analysis is quite superficial. A caveat you should have learned in Econ 101: "all other things being equal". In other words things are very different between the US and those top ranking countries. Perhaps one of those factors you are failing to consider is the corruption of the government, again, ponder the corruption that our tax code enables. Do those other countries have such a comparably complicated tax code that is a massive vehicle for political paybacks and punishment, do they rely more on a VAT, etc.
My analysis was as deep as it needed to be to make my point. If you feel like delving into it further, then go right ahead but my point has been made and you aren't contesting it.
"The 0.01% really don't have that horribly much of the national wealth."
First of all, your focus is wrong. Once country does not exist in a vacuum.
Secondly, the .01% (of the world) have an enormous amount of wealth - though how much we will never know.
I reckon 10% of employees don't even contribute to their employers, let alone society. If they did absolutely nothing, it would be a bonus - other people could do something useful rather than fixing their fucked-up shit.
You're making me feel guilty for reading /. at work now.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
Speak of rent, I'm wondering how advocates of basic income intend to deal with people outbidding one another for property. The reason that places like New York or San Francisco are so expensive is because lots of people are essentially outbidding one another on rent or property, putting upward pressure on the prices. Now, think about how adding that much more income to their spending power is going to impact that. What happens when the rent then exceeds what somebody on this basic income can afford?
I know what you're thinking: Price controls, or maybe even go Karl Marx and just seize their property in the name of humanity and give it away. You still haven't solved the ultimate problem that an economy ultimately sorts out: How you allocate scarce resources. Land, and by extension, real estate, is a finite resource. There's only so many people that you can squeeze into New York City. So how do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't? Some people talk about how they have a right to live in New York City, no matter how much rent costs. That's fine, but what are you going to do when people who think they have the right to live there exceeds the population capacity of the city? Something, somewhere has to give. The problem is even worse in San Francisco, because they (through the democratic process) won't allow anybody to build any additional housing.
People migrate to cities to find work. With a basic income, a lot of people will no longer want to or need to live in a city to find (probably shitty) work just to make ends meet, which will lower demand for the supply of living space in turn lowering price for that living space.
Exactly. I'm very surprised we haven't used statistical information to cut down on rent seeking behavior. Useless middlemen must wield far more power than those that desire an efficient, equitable market.
The problem with that theory is that we are essentially replacing the existing private middlemen with government middlemen. Any time the government offers a service or benefit it comes with strings attach. The government can't resist doing so. Engaging in some sort of social engineering for "your own good". Want government housing, then your behavior must conform to these government requirements. There will still be middlemen, there will still be management, they will merely be government ones looking not for a profit but to enforce compliance with whatever the social engineering "its good for you" idea of the day is. Actually that's a bad metaphor, it implies one idea is replaced with another, this is government we're talking about ... the ideas don't get replaced, they just stack new on top of old, they rarely go away.
It will most likely just give government new avenues of control with inevitably lead to new avenues of government corruption. Congress can not resist meddling with these avenues of control, either for their well intended social engineering or political payback to friends and enemies, as we see in today's tax code. The tax code probably being the greatest delivery vehicle with respect to influence buying and corruption.
And yet, the happiest people in the world are in countries where taxes are high and the governments are 'involved' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
First, the basic income replaces a lot of other programs, so it isn't as expensive as it looks. It's far cheaper to administer than welfare programs. Second, we raise taxes to cover the rest. Everybody's taxable income goes up.
Which would require a tax overhaul that the rich and the corporations will fight, lobby against and, failing that, move their wealth and themselves to a more 'tax friendly' country.
I htink we were collectively distracted by the poor term "the 1%". The actual 1%, the moderately wealthy, the successful doctors and dentists and lawyers and small business owners, they aren't the issue here. The 1% aren't the people in the Panama Papers.
We should instead be upset at "the richest 100 families", who IMO have been causing so many problems. In some ways, the difference between "ideal capitalism" and "capitalism as practiced in the US" is the difference between the 1% and the richest 100 families.
I wouldn't limit this to the US.
http://www.msn.com/en-in/money...
I recently helped an elderly family member get tested, fitted, etc for hearing aids at an audiology office. Sure, it seems like a lot of money. But the $2,400 covers the hearing aid for three years of whatever you might happen to do to it. That breaks down to $800 per year, or less than $70 per month (per ear). That's less than a cable bill, and less than what most people - even elderly drivers - spend on gas for their cars for a month.
That said, there is one health care plan that does cover hearing aids 100% that I am aware of - the VA. I know several people who have gotten their hearing aids for free through them and they've been very happy with it.
Several health insurance plans also offer a small rebate to the customer after they purchase them. The same elderly family member I mentioned before got $500 back from these, and is eligible to do that every 3 years. While I'm not in need of them myself I believe my health insurance plan has a similar arrangement.
That difference may not play so much here in Europe where consumer electronics have a minimum two year guarantee by law. Consumer protection law that America does not prioritize because corporate profits are more important.
http://europa.eu/youreurope/ci...
On the other hand, as medical coverage here tends to be worlds better than in the US it's probably not an issue to get hearing aids here almost for free.
Nearly everything the FBI says so far is a lie. Why should I believe this statement?
Because it's not limited. "paid more than $1 million" could be anything above a million. There is no upper limit.
So why not say something like this? It could have been 10 million or 100 million. There's no lie in the statement and yet most people will assume that 'more than a million' means something like 1.2 million which is probably palatable to the great milling masses of sheep-ass taxpayers.
????
I thought the tap cards you're supposed to be the one tapping the reader, not handing it over to the vendor. (This was the biggest change when Canada moved from swipe to chip - everyone handed their card over, the cashier swiped it, and then had to insert it into the chip reader in front of you).
I always thought that was one of the things with the new EMV system - the only person to touch the card is the card holder - if it's chip, they insert it in the reader (if you can find the bloody slot), if it's tap, you tap it yourself. You don't hand over the card at all.
Even in restaurants now they bring the terminal to you rather than you stick the card in for them to swipe it for you.
Not always the case - in another post in this thread I reference a fast food chain here in Paris called Cojean where a line of cashiers takes cards from lines of customers and it's the cashiers doing the tapping. They do ask if they can, but then it's them that does it.
The fraud is not trivially spotted unless one scrutinizes every transaction on one's statement, which I (and many if not most people) do not. The bank certainly doesn't scrutinize it for me.
The bank most definitely does scrutinize it for you. Constantly. They have entire departments dedicated to it. You're just confusing *where* the scrutinisation is taking place. It's not easily located in your bank statement, it's easily located on the "merchant's". Hence why I said you'll often never know as the bank resolves it itself.
I had a transaction cancelled due to fraud one day and I called up the (Australian, may be different in the EU) bank about it. Their fraud department told me why it was rejected and I asked if it happens often and they said they can send me a summary. I was actually blown away at the number of fraudulent transactions which I never knew happening in my account which banks automatically deal with as they disqualify merchants and transactions. For me it was in the order of 1 transaction per 2 years on a card that has never been used online, and 2 transactions per year on a card which has. I expected a one line answer, not a two page document covering my history of being a bank customer.
Interesting and good to know, thank you. That being said, I prefer nonetheless to have to use my pin for transactions -
Cheers
They aren't as big problems as you think. This kind of fraud is actually trivially spotted and even as a victim from it you'll often never know as the bank resolves it itself.
As for a vendor accidentally keying in the amount a second time, accidentally tapping a second time, and accidentally printing a second receipt .... wait why is the vendor tapping again? What scenario do you actually hand your card to someone these days?
The fraud is not trivially spotted unless one scrutinizes every transaction on one's statement, which I (and many if not most people) do not. The bank certainly doesn't scrutinize it for me.
There are certainly places where the vendor does the transaction. One is called Cojean, a popular chain restaurant here in Paris (and probably elsewhere) and they do the tapping - for a lot of people who obviously think nothing of handing their cards over. There is no option of doing it oneself at this chain.
I'm a US citizen living outside the US. Let me tell you that these chip cards are a nightmare for us. They work about 50% of the time, with no rhyme or reason as to when they'll work or why. Trying the card a second time sometimes works. Sometimes the machines ask for PIN codes when there isn't one, other times not. When this happens, I can enter any random number and the transaction goes through. A card will work at a particular gas station one day, then not the next, then works again the following day. The cards will usually work in one store, or almost never work in another store.
Locals with the new machines have no idea what they're doing. Sometimes they swipe cards with no magnetic stripe. Sometimes they pull the card out before the transaction is done. Sometimes they argue with me telling me it's a debit card when it's a credit card.
And in all cases, whenever the card doesn't work at a purchase, the error message is "declined".
My chip Visa ATM cards work in almost no machines here, while the magnetic stripe cards did. Some give the wrong menu options on ATM machines, allowing "savings account" as the only option when I have only a checking account. Others work or don't at random. The error message is useless. Or sometimes I get different error messages depending on whether I select english or spanish at the ATM. In general, I have about a 1 in 5 chance of extracting some amount of money from a machine. When I call the customer support number on the back of the card, they swear up and down the card works just fine.
I'm slowly removing myself from a reliance on banks and even money in general. These idiotic chip cards are only encouraging me to hasten my exit.
I'm convinced this is about 10% pilot error at the point of sale, and 90% a technical problem on the bank servers in the US. The development was probably outsourced to the lowest bidding indian consulting firm.
I've been living outside the US for almost 15 years and with various banks and cards I have never experienced any of the problems you're having.
Well unfortunately the US took the half-assed approach of moving to chip, but still requiring signature. Everywhere else it's chip + PIN. By the time you've typed the 4-6 digits of your PIN, the chip reading part of it is generally done and the whole transaction is generally quicker than the whole 'cashier hands you annoying piece of paper and a pen and you sign' rigmarole.
Even better, most places outside the US these days have contactless payments available at most merchants. For smaller amounts ($100, $50, varies by country), tap your card on the reader and you're done. Takes literally 1 second.
20 Euros typically.
The problem is that there are portable card readers that scammers take into crowds (ie metro) and scan wallets and purses randomly, taking less than 20 euros each time - no authentication and unless the target is checking their statements carefully they never even notice.
Problem two is where a vendor accidentally or deliberately double taps the card. (so never let it out of your sight).
I've told my bank to remove this service because I prefer to take the few extra seconds to put in my pin code and retain control.
The vendors don't mind because the banks actually charge an extra per month fee as well as a transaction fee for the contactless transaction.
"most nudity that is porn portrays abusive behavior"
Disagree. I don't know what you or your clients watch but that does not describe most of the porn that I've seen.
Now, if people go looking for fucked up porn they're going to find it but most porn is just naked people having normal, if well lighted, sex.
Abuse occurs in so many more ways than physical violence. In a different post on this thread, I already posted a serious of examples that occur frequently in porn that are abusive, even though we often don't even realize it. Normal, naked people having sex, is not porn. However, most porn is not simply normal naked people having sex. That is a conditioned response to think it is.
That said, if one really does enjoy watching normal naked people having sex, ie voyeurism, that isn't really healthy habit, and should be addressed. Because research shows that even if what they are now watching isn't porn, eventually, to get the same gratification, it eventually will be. Just like there is a state between having a normal blood sugar and being diabetic (called pre-diabetic), so, too, with porn. We just don't have a universal term to describe it yet.
(Note: this is the case for most addicitons, we call people heavy drinkers and when it is heavy enough, they are alcoholics. Or they use drugs recreationally but if they recreate too much, they are addicts, etc. In other words, it is a matter of degree which determines if there is a problem or not, but eventually, almost all, "almost addictions" become full blown addictions. Porn is no exception and even triggers chemical responses in the brain as chemical dependency does).
Well how about you post the reference to your 'serious' of examples then, so I can have a look ?
How do you figure that voyeurism isn't healthy? Of course actually having sex is better but if you can't, then why not get off watching other people having nice sex.
I disagree about your idea where a bit of porn leads to overuse like use of alcohol leads to alcoholism. I've been using porn for rather a long time and it has never negatively affected my life, my relationships, my normal sex life, my happiness or my health.
Porn triggers reactions in the brain because it's sex. Sex triggers reactions in the brain. Overhearing strangers in the next hotel room having (normal) sex is going to trigger reactions in the brain in the same exact way. And you know what? There's nothing at all wrong with this. It's how humans are and how we reproduce normally. Hearing sex, seeing a nice body, being touched, kissed, touching oneself are all going to trigger the same responses in the brain.
So no, use of porn does not lead to being fucked up. Fucked up people using porn leads to fucked up people being fucked up which will be the case whether or not porn is involved.
The reality is that people, including young people, now and forever going forward are going to constantly be exposed to nudity and sex because that's the world most of us live in (the Quakers being a notable exception). The way to handle this is not to say 'porn is bad' but to say 'bad porn is bad' in the same way that taking medicine for a headache is not bad but taking cocaine because we're tired is bad. Educate young people about what is good and what is abnormal and you'll get a lot further, in reality, than just trying to eliminate it (which is impossible in this day and age).
"most nudity that is porn portrays abusive behavior"
Disagree. I don't know what you or your clients watch but that does not describe most of the porn that I've seen.
Now, if people go looking for fucked up porn they're going to find it but most porn is just naked people having normal, if well lighted, sex.
Aliens would be the biggest thing to happen to NASA ever. It would mean an unlimited budget and hiding any alien encounter would be against their best interests.
Unless they themselves are the aliens...
A well known event that happens every year in Europe is when people from Belgium and the Netherlands pack their stuff in their cars and migrate through Germany to southern Europe. This pisses of the Germans as their autobahns are stock full of cars. .. how will they continue to do this with cars that only move a few hundred km between recharges?
Very long extension cables.
What I want to know is if any supporter of major terrorist organizations has ever labelled their money transfer as "ISIS Donation"/"Bomb Fund"/"Al-Qaeda". Just give me one person in the history of the world stupid enough to do that, and there is at least some argument to me made for this ridiculous sounding policy.
Well...
http://www.oddee.com/item_9894...
"10 Of The Dumbest Terrorists Ever"
Yeah they probably memo that as "Payment to a dear friend for two pitchers of Samuel Adams Boston Lager"
And the Department of Financial Security Monitoring (comrade) goes "Oh that's so nice - we approve of that".
Your transfer referencing SABL has been blocked due to federal regulations against funding potential weapons development.
Scanning Aerosol Backscatter Lidar
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
China and / or Russia would step up in a heartbeat.
We as a country have lost our balls somewhere and I seriously doubt we're going to find them in this little spat.
Can I say the RRS It's Bloody Cold Here has the ring of a Culture ship and would make a nice epitaph for one of the finest science fiction authors of the last fifty years. Given the poll options though, I'd like to suggest the GCU Experiencing a Significant Gravitas Shortfall instead.
Or perhaps "Experiencing a Significant Excess of Gravitis" which might also avoid a lawsuit.
RIP Ian M. Banks.
"Keurig Spends 10 Years Developing A Recyclable Coffee Cup"
The duration indicating that this was a low to no priority project for the company.
It's not just birds, but any strike by FOD (Foreign Object Debris).
No problem - just build a wall around the plane and have the drones pay for it.