I think the Phone hype curve has peaked. We had ten years of iphone/android fun, but I just bought an Oppo F1S that looks just as shiney as any flagship phone. Iphone/Galaxy/Pixel etc are $1300+ in my market, the Oppo was $320 and does the job for 99% of the use cases. I suspect Samsung, Apple etc are in for a post-expensive-phone shock as people tire of the never ending cycle. It's just a phone, and we've now reached 'good enough' that people will stop caring about new features.
At any sort of speed a bicycle simply doesn't go (which is why they aren't allowed on major four-lanes).
The average speed on my commute to work (about 20km) is 18km/h (govt published figures). Most people can pedal that fast.
A motorcycle lacks safety, cargo and passengers.
Cars are safer than bikes, but buses are safer than cars. They also hold more cargo and passengers. Are you advocating we all should own our own buses?
If cars and trucks weren't a "scalable packet size" then their use wouldn't dominate person and goods transportation.
Er what? This makes no sense. Congestion is a real issue. Or do you think simply adding more cars will somehow just make this problem go away?
Since we can't build more roads, the only solution available is making smaller vehicles (we already have these, they're called bikes, or motorcycles), or we put more people into each vehicle (we also have these too, otherwise known as buses and trains).
So problem->solution. Or we could all buy more cars and see how that works out.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I hope you are.
Not at all. Once you accept that the speed limit is just number, mostly invented by bureaucrats, then is not all evil. Yes there are negatives, but there are also positives too. eg Fatigue is a common issue on freeways, and too slow a speed limit is a contributing factor. Higher speeds have shown to reduce accidents in some cases.
you will have more accidents at higher speed,
Let's assume you are correct (you aren't but go with this for now), then the solution to safer roads can only be to reduce the speed limit. Ok we've reduced the speed limit, now I apply your same logic that going slower would be safer, therefore we must reduce it further. Rinse repeat until zero is the only acceptable speed limit.
Your theory fails this simple test.
Let's take your argument to the extreme: 10 kids cross the road you are on at the same time, at different points. If you're going slow enough, you brake in time. If not, you are probably looking at five dead bodies, because you didn't have time to react, not the room to brake.
Or, I was so fast I got past before the first kid even left his house, meanwhile old granny going 30 ploughed into the lot of them because not only is she slow, her reaction time is terrible too. This example is ridiculous.
And if you are really curious, run some simulations, and you will see that you don't lose that much time by going slower, vs the one you lose by not moving at all (red light, for example). Speeding (in most cases) only leads to marginal gains.
I've don't need simulations, I've got real world data. I make real gains of up to an hour a day in my life by ignoring speed limits (and don't confuse ignoring limits with not paying attention to road conditions). I've been driving and riding 30 years and never had a crash. How does that fit in with your theory?
It sounds like header overhead. The obvious solution here is to increase packet size, to boost throughput.
Exactly! I have this discussion from time to time when people mention traffic issues, and when I mention packet size I get blank stares in return. 1 byte per packet is much less efficient than 3, 4, or 100 bytes per packet. It's why public transport is the only solution that can work in a large city. Larger packet sizes!
Think of not only switch capabilities, but also computer nodes (CPU utilization, etc....). Every piece of the network has a capacity.
Don't worry, I'm very familiar with such things. I've still never seen "whole swathes of network" brought down due to congestion like roads are. And there's a reason for that. If we use data networks as an analogy for traffic, we'd be trying to push data from 1 million nodes across a fully meshed 1kbps peer to peer fabric.
No amount of smarts will fix that because there simply isn't enough bandwidth to begin with.
One of the main causes of traffic jams, at least in heavy traffic on interstates and major four-lanes, is somebody simply touching his brakes.
The main cause of congestion is people who think they need to get around in a box that takes up at least 10 square metres of road. At any sort of speed that 10m2 turns into 30-40m2. It's simple maths, the car is not a scalable packet size for city sized populations.
Handling flash congestions is a very big issue in networks. Those congestions propagate and bring down whole swathes of network areas, just like traffic jams.
Really? I spent years managing networks and never had this issue. I'd be interested in knowing how this could happen outside of DDOS type events.
If you're driving 25 instead of 50, you're much more likely to notice a kid running out after his ball from between 2 parked cars and stop or swerve to avoid hitting him.
If you're doing 50 instead of 25 you might be 100 metres further up the street by the time he runs out thereby avoiding an accident altogether. It works both ways.
Now, instead of cherry picking 2 countries from the 22 which recognize gay rights and marriage, look at it from a truly international perspective, and include the 72 where homosexuality is a crime.
Criminal under both left and right governments. Or did you miss that bit out on purpose?
None of this is the point though, we are comparing the US political system with other similar western democracies all founded from the former British Empire eg UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc you could also include North Western Europe too if you like, since it is also similar, but the point still stands. The US 'left' is more right than most other similar political parties in other similar nations.
Reading the article I see the push for this cashless system is to assure that the government gets their cut of the deal.
That seems to be a common thought. But having some (tiny) experience in government payment platforms, my opinion is it is merely the govt (or think of it as people just like you) using technology to improve efficiency.That's all.
Cash won't be going anywhere soon, schools, charities, and all sorts of small industry rely on it. The govt (people just like you) know this too.
It's not just about taxes. It's about control. If we can just turn your money off we own you. You're a serf then, not even a peasant. First get the guns, then the money. Now you're less than nothing. Whoever controls the government owns all those serfs.
Hmmm, I think that depends on the issues. In regards to social issues (like gay marriage as a single example) our Left is a good ways to the left by international standards, although not to any kind of crazy extreme in my opinion.
Equal rights is hardly a left issue. The UK for example legalised gay marriage under a conservative government, as did New Zealand.
This is probably a good example of how the extreme right make the centre right look much more left than they actually are.
Trump is losing hard. His two flagship policies are on the rocks.
Four.
The Wall is never being going to be built to completion, and the parts that are built, if they bother continuing with such a harebrained scheme, will be paid for by the American taxpayer.
And draining the swap turned into filling the swamp with even uglier toads. A complete and utter failure that everyone saw coming.
You where so sure that you had this in the bag you where already celebrating while he was mopping the floor with you.
I see this response quite frequently I wonder if it's on the Trump fanboy talking point sheet.
Something for you to think about, just because someone thinks Trump is nutbag doesn't automatically make them a Democrat/Hillary supporter. I'm not even American, nor do I consider myself aligned with either side of politics (each has merits/faults) but I know plenty of conservatives who think Trump is batshit crazy too. Quite clearly half of Trump's own party think he's crazy because they are voting against him. How does that fit in with your narrative?
The Democrats are under the control of the "hard left"? Please, what radicalism has the Democratic party proposed on par with completely dismantling the bulk of our government? By international standards our country has no hard left and the hard right looks downright nutty.
US political parties are Middle-Right and Hard Right The right have succeeded in being so far right, they make the middle right look left by comparison.
Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care?
The US attracts 60-85k people for medical procedures each year, compared with Thailand that receives 2.8 Million.
750k American leave the US to seek medical services elsewhere, so the free market is speaking loudly and clearly.
Of course with enough skill you can do almost anything. But part of the game is making it not worth the effort.
We've had this feature here for years without issue. The limit for withdrawal from memory is $200. Why would anyone sufficiently skilled bother risking jail for $200 when they can earn that much in an hour with a legit job?
exploit in phone app. no pin needed. have you ever heard of auth bypass?
The App has it's own PIN, it isn't the phone PIN. And even if you manage to bypass that somehow, you also need your account PIN at the ATM along with the 8 digit code, ie 2FA. You know someone has actually thought about this before you came along...
Sometimes we forget how medieval the US banking system is. Then something like this comes around.
These stories are quite frequent here, and generally have the same responses.
We've also had this for years. I wonder how such an advanced economy like the US can have such backwards banking tech.
given the combo of WF being crooked and the many hacks on cell phones now a days i would give this about 45 days after 75% of the atms are upgraded before there is a massive breach (and a couple Giga-Bucks go "missing")
Panic! Be Afraid! Fear!
Hate to burst your bubble, this is old tech commonly used in other countries without the catastrophe you anticipate.
So, instead of popping in a card and 4 digit pin, I have to fumble around with an app then punch in a clumsy, 8-digit ramdom code I will have to mentally triple-check?
If it makes you feel better, we've had this in my country for years and the sky didn't fall on anyone's head. It merely offers another way of accessing cash. You can still use your card if you prefer.
An example of how this is beneficial to some people some time I had this very day today. My teenager daughter broke her phone and needed $100 to get it fixed. Rather than wait for me to get home from work and take her down to the nearest mall to see a phone repair shop, I sent her a code which she could use at the nearest ATM, get the cash and get her phone fixed herself.
Another time I was at the shops and noticed my wallet wasn't in my pocket (I later found out it fell out of my pocket in the car and was still there). I needed some money so used the app on my phone to generate a code, get cash and carry on.
So yeah, it might not be for you, but some people find new ways of accessing their money more convenient.
So if I have control over your phone, I can tell the app, without you knowing to give me a code. While standing at an atm, and withdraw your money.. HAHA have you guys seen the security on cell phones lately?
Phone app needs PIN, Card needs PIN. I'll leave this space below for you to explain how this is any less secure:
I wouldn't trust Wells Fargo any further than I could throw any of their crooked executives. Even if my credit unions offered this, I wouldn't link my cell phone to my banking info. That seems like an extremely bad idea.
We've had this for years. Why are US banks stuck in the 20th century?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Phone hype curve has peaked. We had ten years of iphone/android fun, but I just bought an Oppo F1S that looks just as shiney as any flagship phone. Iphone/Galaxy/Pixel etc are $1300+ in my market, the Oppo was $320 and does the job for 99% of the use cases. I suspect Samsung, Apple etc are in for a post-expensive-phone shock as people tire of the never ending cycle. It's just a phone, and we've now reached 'good enough' that people will stop caring about new features.
At any sort of speed a bicycle simply doesn't go (which is why they aren't allowed on major four-lanes).
The average speed on my commute to work (about 20km) is 18km/h (govt published figures). Most people can pedal that fast.
A motorcycle lacks safety, cargo and passengers.
Cars are safer than bikes, but buses are safer than cars. They also hold more cargo and passengers. Are you advocating we all should own our own buses?
If cars and trucks weren't a "scalable packet size" then their use wouldn't dominate person and goods transportation.
Er what? This makes no sense. Congestion is a real issue. Or do you think simply adding more cars will somehow just make this problem go away?
Since we can't build more roads, the only solution available is making smaller vehicles (we already have these, they're called bikes, or motorcycles), or we put more people into each vehicle (we also have these too, otherwise known as buses and trains).
So problem->solution. Or we could all buy more cars and see how that works out.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I hope you are.
Not at all. Once you accept that the speed limit is just number, mostly invented by bureaucrats, then is not all evil. Yes there are negatives, but there are also positives too. eg Fatigue is a common issue on freeways, and too slow a speed limit is a contributing factor. Higher speeds have shown to reduce accidents in some cases.
you will have more accidents at higher speed,
Let's assume you are correct (you aren't but go with this for now), then the solution to safer roads can only be to reduce the speed limit. Ok we've reduced the speed limit, now I apply your same logic that going slower would be safer, therefore we must reduce it further. Rinse repeat until zero is the only acceptable speed limit.
Your theory fails this simple test.
Let's take your argument to the extreme: 10 kids cross the road you are on at the same time, at different points. If you're going slow enough, you brake in time. If not, you are probably looking at five dead bodies, because you didn't have time to react, not the room to brake.
Or, I was so fast I got past before the first kid even left his house, meanwhile old granny going 30 ploughed into the lot of them because not only is she slow, her reaction time is terrible too. This example is ridiculous.
And if you are really curious, run some simulations, and you will see that you don't lose that much time by going slower, vs the one you lose by not moving at all (red light, for example). Speeding (in most cases) only leads to marginal gains.
I've don't need simulations, I've got real world data. I make real gains of up to an hour a day in my life by ignoring speed limits (and don't confuse ignoring limits with not paying attention to road conditions). I've been driving and riding 30 years and never had a crash. How does that fit in with your theory?
It sounds like header overhead. The obvious solution here is to increase packet size, to boost throughput.
Exactly! I have this discussion from time to time when people mention traffic issues, and when I mention packet size I get blank stares in return. 1 byte per packet is much less efficient than 3, 4, or 100 bytes per packet. It's why public transport is the only solution that can work in a large city. Larger packet sizes!
Think of not only switch capabilities, but also computer nodes (CPU utilization, etc....). Every piece of the network has a capacity.
Don't worry, I'm very familiar with such things. I've still never seen "whole swathes of network" brought down due to congestion like roads are. And there's a reason for that. If we use data networks as an analogy for traffic, we'd be trying to push data from 1 million nodes across a fully meshed 1kbps peer to peer fabric.
No amount of smarts will fix that because there simply isn't enough bandwidth to begin with.
. It's extremely naive to think of politics as a simple linear left-right scale.
Er, the was exactly the point I was trying to make. Glad you could join us...
One of the main causes of traffic jams, at least in heavy traffic on interstates and major four-lanes, is somebody simply touching his brakes.
The main cause of congestion is people who think they need to get around in a box that takes up at least 10 square metres of road. At any sort of speed that 10m2 turns into 30-40m2. It's simple maths, the car is not a scalable packet size for city sized populations.
Handling flash congestions is a very big issue in networks. Those congestions propagate and bring down whole swathes of network areas, just like traffic jams.
Really? I spent years managing networks and never had this issue. I'd be interested in knowing how this could happen outside of DDOS type events.
If you're driving 25 instead of 50, you're much more likely to notice a kid running out after his ball from between 2 parked cars and stop or swerve to avoid hitting him.
If you're doing 50 instead of 25 you might be 100 metres further up the street by the time he runs out thereby avoiding an accident altogether. It works both ways.
Now, instead of cherry picking 2 countries from the 22 which recognize gay rights and marriage, look at it from a truly international perspective, and include the 72 where homosexuality is a crime.
Criminal under both left and right governments. Or did you miss that bit out on purpose?
None of this is the point though, we are comparing the US political system with other similar western democracies all founded from the former British Empire eg UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc you could also include North Western Europe too if you like, since it is also similar, but the point still stands. The US 'left' is more right than most other similar political parties in other similar nations.
Reading the article I see the push for this cashless system is to assure that the government gets their cut of the deal.
That seems to be a common thought. But having some (tiny) experience in government payment platforms, my opinion is it is merely the govt (or think of it as people just like you) using technology to improve efficiency.That's all.
Cash won't be going anywhere soon, schools, charities, and all sorts of small industry rely on it. The govt (people just like you) know this too.
It's not just about taxes. It's about control. If we can just turn your money off we own you. You're a serf then, not even a peasant. First get the guns, then the money. Now you're less than nothing. Whoever controls the government owns all those serfs.
And how is that different from where you live?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hmmm, I think that depends on the issues. In regards to social issues (like gay marriage as a single example) our Left is a good ways to the left by international standards, although not to any kind of crazy extreme in my opinion.
Equal rights is hardly a left issue. The UK for example legalised gay marriage under a conservative government, as did New Zealand.
This is probably a good example of how the extreme right make the centre right look much more left than they actually are.
Trump is losing hard. His two flagship policies are on the rocks.
Four.
The Wall is never being going to be built to completion, and the parts that are built, if they bother continuing with such a harebrained scheme, will be paid for by the American taxpayer.
And draining the swap turned into filling the swamp with even uglier toads. A complete and utter failure that everyone saw coming.
You where so sure that you had this in the bag you where already celebrating while he was mopping the floor with you.
I see this response quite frequently I wonder if it's on the Trump fanboy talking point sheet.
Something for you to think about, just because someone thinks Trump is nutbag doesn't automatically make them a Democrat/Hillary supporter. I'm not even American, nor do I consider myself aligned with either side of politics (each has merits/faults) but I know plenty of conservatives who think Trump is batshit crazy too. Quite clearly half of Trump's own party think he's crazy because they are voting against him. How does that fit in with your narrative?
The Democrats are under the control of the "hard left"? Please, what radicalism has the Democratic party proposed on par with completely dismantling the bulk of our government? By international standards our country has no hard left and the hard right looks downright nutty.
US political parties are Middle-Right and Hard Right The right have succeeded in being so far right, they make the middle right look left by comparison.
Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care?
The US attracts 60-85k people for medical procedures each year, compared with Thailand that receives 2.8 Million.
750k American leave the US to seek medical services elsewhere, so the free market is speaking loudly and clearly.
. And chances are it can be extracted with skill.
Of course with enough skill you can do almost anything. But part of the game is making it not worth the effort.
We've had this feature here for years without issue. The limit for withdrawal from memory is $200. Why would anyone sufficiently skilled bother risking jail for $200 when they can earn that much in an hour with a legit job?
exploit in phone app. no pin needed. have you ever heard of auth bypass?
The App has it's own PIN, it isn't the phone PIN. And even if you manage to bypass that somehow, you also need your account PIN at the ATM along with the 8 digit code, ie 2FA. You know someone has actually thought about this before you came along...
Sometimes we forget how medieval the US banking system is. Then something like this comes around.
These stories are quite frequent here, and generally have the same responses.
We've also had this for years. I wonder how such an advanced economy like the US can have such backwards banking tech.
given the combo of WF being crooked and the many hacks on cell phones now a days i would give this about 45 days after 75% of the atms are upgraded before there is a massive breach (and a couple Giga-Bucks go "missing")
Panic! Be Afraid! Fear!
Hate to burst your bubble, this is old tech commonly used in other countries without the catastrophe you anticipate.
So, instead of popping in a card and 4 digit pin, I have to fumble around with an app then punch in a clumsy, 8-digit ramdom code I will have to mentally triple-check?
If it makes you feel better, we've had this in my country for years and the sky didn't fall on anyone's head. It merely offers another way of accessing cash. You can still use your card if you prefer.
An example of how this is beneficial to some people some time I had this very day today. My teenager daughter broke her phone and needed $100 to get it fixed. Rather than wait for me to get home from work and take her down to the nearest mall to see a phone repair shop, I sent her a code which she could use at the nearest ATM, get the cash and get her phone fixed herself.
Another time I was at the shops and noticed my wallet wasn't in my pocket (I later found out it fell out of my pocket in the car and was still there). I needed some money so used the app on my phone to generate a code, get cash and carry on.
So yeah, it might not be for you, but some people find new ways of accessing their money more convenient.
So if I have control over your phone, I can tell the app, without you knowing to give me a code. While standing at an atm, and withdraw your money.. HAHA have you guys seen the security on cell phones lately?
Phone app needs PIN, Card needs PIN. I'll leave this space below for you to explain how this is any less secure:
I wouldn't trust Wells Fargo any further than I could throw any of their crooked executives. Even if my credit unions offered this, I wouldn't link my cell phone to my banking info. That seems like an extremely bad idea.
We've had this for years. Why are US banks stuck in the 20th century?