Hate to break it to you but this system has been in wide use for years now without any real issues - the bank takes the risk because they know that anyone taking payments has to have a merchant account and are tracable if they start acting up. It's a very stupid criminal that tries to steal this way, it's doomed to end in trouble for them.
Sure, it is a benefit, (clearly, arguable how big it is but it's obviously easier) and since the risk isn't on your end, it's with the banks why should you care?
The payment-taker has to have a merchant account so as soon as they are caught, all the payments are reversed, and then boys are sent around his house to sort-'im-out. There is minimal risk and this has been running quite successfully in EU countries for *years* now.
So... what's your point? You're just guessing as to why they slow down, too. To find out you do the test and monitor it over years, and then you'll know if it is effective. Which is what they're doing.
Yeah, I didn't get into it mainly because of the fluctuations in value. The 'value store' component of the currency was completely broken. To be honest I trusted the technical side of it, but it seems even that is now highly questionable.
The blockchain issue should have been resolved months ago. It's scary how this is real money that is being controlled by such a small number of completely unaccountable people.
You may not be able to place calls with a rotary phone any more, but you certainly can receive them. The system still works, its just the dialing methods have changed.
Actually you can, atleast in the UK. Pulse dialling is still supported by the national phone provider.
I get the impression a disturbing proportion of politicians don't actually believe in the founding principles of the nation they govern anymore.
At the risk of going wildly offtopic, be careful when you venerate people. Many of the Founding Fathers had slaves and saw no conflict with what they then wrote in the constitution about all men being equal and having the right to liberty. They had their own vested interests, and acted on them.
Here in the United States we have something called the First Amendment which protects "Free Speech. That includes criticizing opportunistic Muslim migrants that are also potential terrorists.
Or you know, making shit up that panders to dumb fearful bigots. America! Land of religious freedom!
Amd software has far less budget than it used to, and people expect more and quicker and cheaper. I'm not sure how you expect to vet every app update anyway, it's not like you could vet the original code so what really can you say about updates. Software used to have long release cycles. It also used to cost 10s of dollars, and have testers. Your average $1 or free app is not gonna be able to do that.
I have to think that Apple have brought this kind of thing on themselves - their ridiculous app approval system is uncertain and slow and developers are obviously going to try to find a way round it. If I find a bug in Android I fix it and release it. My iOS counterparts often have to live with the bug for weeks before they release because of the faff of the approval process.
No idea where this pair programming hate comes from yelled out by people who clearly never ever really tried it.
Easy, if you're not the sort of person that easily spends extended time with other people then it's going to be something close to hell. Introverted people have to put effort into social interactions, and so will never ever want to spend 8 hours a day interacting with someone else, even someone they really like.
You don't actually need to try it to know that, it's down to how people are wired interpersonally. I can understand how it might work for some but I'm sure as anything it won't work for me as a default working condition.
Bollocks. And also anyone who modded you up, go fuck yourself.
You are the worst people I can imagine, spreading utter bullshit from no position of knowledge that incites distrust and violence. Try learning about things from a source that isn't full of hatred - maybe if you have opinions about Islam then you should talk to an actual Muslim person. No, I suppose you wouldn't risk that, you probably believe they have lasers in their eyes and can crush your skull with a single swipe of their robotic hands.
They are, because they also sat don't binge. They are saying you can have a couple of pints 3 times a week, there aren't many other configurations that work with all the restrictions in the recommendations.
Unfortunately health guidelines gave a tendency to gain legal momentum, especially here, so it is worth keeping aware of what's being said.
Interesting that you should mention learning an instrument as something to do to stretch yourself since so much great music is well known for being created whilst on substances. Some things aren't best sober...
The biggest annoyance here is that we feel we should follow the guidelines - the assumption is that medical guidance should be followed, without taking into account that you are definitely going to die someday so your life shouldn't be about avoiding it at all costs.
If people were immortal except for the effects that might kill us, then yes it makes sense to do your best to mitigate those risks. But we're all going to die after 80 or 90 years of life, so how do you want to spend those years? Starving yourself (mild hunger is best for longevity), eating healthy but borderline boring food, avoiding all mind-altering substances. It doesn't feel like a life, it's hardly exploring the bounds of existence is it? Yes I'm sure some ultra-smug teetotallers will be able to get some sad satisfaction from this news, (yay other people's misery), but given that the human race has *always* sought out chemical mood alteration, perhaps it should be something we accept as a basic need. If not alcohol, then what? There are a bunch of essentially harmless synthetic drugs that we criminalise for no good reason, that at the very least would be better than alcohol.
Discourage alcohol, but then accept that people will take drugs of some sort, so what should you encourage?
Not to mention that it had been less than 20 years since the First World War ended, there was very little public support for another until it was obviously inevitable.
Yes yes of course the market will fix all problems. Until you're in a sufficiently small minority to be ignored - What happens when all grocery stores stop accepting cash? And there're not enough hold-outs like you to support an alternative? What then, starve? If you dislike a trend then don't just move your money - be loud. Because shifting your business to a competitor might not be enough.
Problem with having "None the above" is it doesn't actually lead to any sort of clear action. Like, what are you actually going to do with that figure... say 30% vote "None" and gets more votes than any other candidate. What then? You keep the old guy? You have nothing at all and plead for someone else to stand? What happens in the meantime?
I see alot of (justified) anger or apathy, but never any clear (realistic) suggestion of what to do about it. The suggestions range from "shoot them all" to "we should re-think democracy and wouldn't it be, mm, nicer if we all just, mm, got along and came to agreement", but none actually get down to the issue of how do you command a leadership of millions of people.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to break it to you but this system has been in wide use for years now without any real issues - the bank takes the risk because they know that anyone taking payments has to have a merchant account and are tracable if they start acting up. It's a very stupid criminal that tries to steal this way, it's doomed to end in trouble for them.
Sure, it is a benefit, (clearly, arguable how big it is but it's obviously easier) and since the risk isn't on your end, it's with the banks why should you care?
The payment-taker has to have a merchant account so as soon as they are caught, all the payments are reversed, and then boys are sent around his house to sort-'im-out. There is minimal risk and this has been running quite successfully in EU countries for *years* now.
So... what's your point? You're just guessing as to why they slow down, too. To find out you do the test and monitor it over years, and then you'll know if it is effective. Which is what they're doing.
Yeah, I didn't get into it mainly because of the fluctuations in value. The 'value store' component of the currency was completely broken. To be honest I trusted the technical side of it, but it seems even that is now highly questionable.
If half of what this guy says is true, Bitcoin is in big trouble
https://medium.com/@octskyward...
The blockchain issue should have been resolved months ago. It's scary how this is real money that is being controlled by such a small number of completely unaccountable people.
You may not be able to place calls with a rotary phone any more, but you certainly can receive them. The system still works, its just the dialing methods have changed.
Actually you can, atleast in the UK. Pulse dialling is still supported by the national phone provider.
I get the impression a disturbing proportion of politicians don't actually believe in the founding principles of the nation they govern anymore.
At the risk of going wildly offtopic, be careful when you venerate people. Many of the Founding Fathers had slaves and saw no conflict with what they then wrote in the constitution about all men being equal and having the right to liberty. They had their own vested interests, and acted on them.
``a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889'
Eeeesh... good luck getting representation that doesn't already have money to support themselves....
Here in the United States we have something called the First Amendment which protects "Free Speech. That includes criticizing opportunistic Muslim migrants that are also potential terrorists.
Or you know, making shit up that panders to dumb fearful bigots. America! Land of religious freedom!
Unless people actually think Trump is doing what he is doing for the lulz and purely to bother people.
Err... *actually*...
Amd software has far less budget than it used to, and people expect more and quicker and cheaper. I'm not sure how you expect to vet every app update anyway, it's not like you could vet the original code so what really can you say about updates. Software used to have long release cycles. It also used to cost 10s of dollars, and have testers. Your average $1 or free app is not gonna be able to do that.
I have to think that Apple have brought this kind of thing on themselves - their ridiculous app approval system is uncertain and slow and developers are obviously going to try to find a way round it. If I find a bug in Android I fix it and release it. My iOS counterparts often have to live with the bug for weeks before they release because of the faff of the approval process.
>
No idea where this pair programming hate comes from yelled out by people who clearly never ever really tried it.
Easy, if you're not the sort of person that easily spends extended time with other people then it's going to be something close to hell. Introverted people have to put effort into social interactions, and so will never ever want to spend 8 hours a day interacting with someone else, even someone they really like.
You don't actually need to try it to know that, it's down to how people are wired interpersonally. I can understand how it might work for some but I'm sure as anything it won't work for me as a default working condition.
Bollocks. And also anyone who modded you up, go fuck yourself.
You are the worst people I can imagine, spreading utter bullshit from no position of knowledge that incites distrust and violence. Try learning about things from a source that isn't full of hatred - maybe if you have opinions about Islam then you should talk to an actual Muslim person. No, I suppose you wouldn't risk that, you probably believe they have lasers in their eyes and can crush your skull with a single swipe of their robotic hands.
Sure, why not. I mean I don't think that follows at all, but even if it did that's not a bad way of organising your one shot at existence.
They are, because they also sat don't binge. They are saying you can have a couple of pints 3 times a week, there aren't many other configurations that work with all the restrictions in the recommendations.
Unfortunately health guidelines gave a tendency to gain legal momentum, especially here, so it is worth keeping aware of what's being said.
Interesting that you should mention learning an instrument as something to do to stretch yourself since so much great music is well known for being created whilst on substances. Some things aren't best sober...
Both safer options.
The biggest annoyance here is that we feel we should follow the guidelines - the assumption is that medical guidance should be followed, without taking into account that you are definitely going to die someday so your life shouldn't be about avoiding it at all costs.
If people were immortal except for the effects that might kill us, then yes it makes sense to do your best to mitigate those risks. But we're all going to die after 80 or 90 years of life, so how do you want to spend those years? Starving yourself (mild hunger is best for longevity), eating healthy but borderline boring food, avoiding all mind-altering substances. It doesn't feel like a life, it's hardly exploring the bounds of existence is it? Yes I'm sure some ultra-smug teetotallers will be able to get some sad satisfaction from this news, (yay other people's misery), but given that the human race has *always* sought out chemical mood alteration, perhaps it should be something we accept as a basic need. If not alcohol, then what? There are a bunch of essentially harmless synthetic drugs that we criminalise for no good reason, that at the very least would be better than alcohol.
Discourage alcohol, but then accept that people will take drugs of some sort, so what should you encourage?
Not to mention that it had been less than 20 years since the First World War ended, there was very little public support for another until it was obviously inevitable.
It must take actual talent and effort to write a post that is 100% bullshit. Like to back up your claims with some evidence there?
Yes yes of course the market will fix all problems. Until you're in a sufficiently small minority to be ignored - What happens when all grocery stores stop accepting cash? And there're not enough hold-outs like you to support an alternative? What then, starve? If you dislike a trend then don't just move your money - be loud. Because shifting your business to a competitor might not be enough.
Heh, that is true.
Problem with having "None the above" is it doesn't actually lead to any sort of clear action. Like, what are you actually going to do with that figure... say 30% vote "None" and gets more votes than any other candidate. What then? You keep the old guy? You have nothing at all and plead for someone else to stand? What happens in the meantime?
I see alot of (justified) anger or apathy, but never any clear (realistic) suggestion of what to do about it. The suggestions range from "shoot them all" to "we should re-think democracy and wouldn't it be, mm, nicer if we all just, mm, got along and came to agreement", but none actually get down to the issue of how do you command a leadership of millions of people.
Well, I don't live in your country, so probably better that I don't express my opinion.