Would anyone be surprised if the exchange captured most of those cost savings for themselves?
I think another post is onto something: 1. IBM screwed up the relationship so badly that the NYSE is walking away. 2. IBM has some other, greater, revenue opportunity. 3. Something is going on inside IBM where the sales people can steal each other's customers.
The reason this _should_ be an issue is the principal of separation of powers has been sodomized by the current administration.
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases.
I copied this whole-cloth from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/20/whitehouse-gon zales/ I don't know anything about the site, but it's a nice summary and should have been the story the media told following the hearing that day. It gets to why this matters in a hurry, because it's not about hiring/firing.
Yes, right now Obama looks like the white knight that will save America. But it's early in the presidential politics:
1. In order to get the BIG presidential campaign donations, he's got to give up all of these white knight traits.
2. The history of presidential politics is littered with well-intentioned white knights. Possibly the most ethical president in a long time, Jimmy Carter couldn't make it into a second term.
You would do well to stop anthropomorphizing Obama and begin to comprehend the extent to which the fundamental nature of the balance of powers in this country have been altered in the last 6 years.
And you wonder why the American government is such a mess?
The AG is serving the Administration's political ends first, the laws of the U.S. second. The law was supposed to guide this country, not the Executive Branch. The consequences of allowing this behavior are permanently altering the fundamental idea of balance of powers in this country.
That is hard to compress into media that sells, especially when citizens don't understand HOW their government is supposed to work! That includes you...
You and the numb skulls who modded you insightful would do well to review the term "Separation of Powers" and our Constitution.
I read the article. She had some requirements up front that exclude her running Etch.
It should not come as a surprise that she is really indifferent to Free (as in speech) software. She wants her hardware to "just" work. This unfortunately excludes a default Debian Etch. I've been through Sarge and Etch and I think Ubuntu competition has only benefited the Debian project because Etch is a far superior release of Free software. Yes, non-free is out there and relatively painless, but it still requires some stuff that she specifically did not want to do.
I would encourage potential Ubuntu users to give Debian Etch a spin first. It's much, much more reliable, has many different installers including the excellent graphical installer and is a huge improvement over Sarge, pretty much blowing away the old complaints about Debian.
I'm really not sure where all the moral outrage is coming from because this is the consequence of an ownership society where privatization is blindly assumed to be, not just good, but the best thing.
This kind of posturing and eventual law enforcement activity where they'll perp-walk someone for some kind of copyright violation will get votes and most importantly raise campaign contributions.
I suspect more than a few slashdotters think that "the private sector does a better job at most things than the government.." The private sector is maximizing their revenues by enforcing its ownership rights and NOW it's a problem?
Pre-emptive disclosure works against the typical closed source company.
Option 1: Exploit is published, patch is delivered really quickly. Sysadmin thinks, "Those guys at company X are on top of it..." PHB will say the same.
Option 2: Unilaterally announce fixes, make patches available. Sysadmin doesn't bother to read the whole announcement and whines because it makes work she doesn't understand or think is urgent. PHB thinks "Gee company X's software isn't very good, look at all the patches..."
The market for secure software is small even smaller if you add standards compliance. Microsoft is a shining example of how large the market is for insecure, non-standard software.
...slowly building new fans online, playing live occasionally, making a solid living but never a crazy-rich one.
1. I'm old enough to remember when that's exactly what punk rock was and most not-pop music genres still are.
2. I happen to interact with a number of musicians and a few actors who had what most people would describe as "celebrity" scale careers. There are a few that can _only_ talk about themselves with everything they do pretty much is about them. They can be no fun if you don't pay attention to them exclusively. Putting two in the same room is just like high-school drama. What's worse is they have children. No, 24-7 nanny care doesn't mitigate the damage. That said, there are many who are decent creative people that happen to act/perform for a living. This guy sounds like he fits the latter.
Today's lesson: there's definitely a group of celebrities that actively pursue the drama and trivial hoopla that's so popular.
This is about litigation that do NOT draw IBM into the fight.
It's likely they'll attack a company using OSS software. The point, just like the RIAA's litigation of individuals is to instill fear in the form of litigation costs into the business decision.
The thing is, they can keep coming back into court with new patent litigation against new OSS consumers. Individuals and companies who have specifically been chosen because they can't afford to litigate.
It will cost Microsoft practically nothing, as they transition away from actually producing something to simply charging an innovation tax.
Here's a quick and dirty run down of what one SHOULD do if they want to start a business.
There's a fork at the beginning of the road: Quit your job or keep your job and commit to your startup as best you can.
For the Quitting My Job crowd: 1. Make an actual living at it ASAP. If you can't, then forget it. If others around you are, and you can't for some reason, there simply isn't the time to learn the hard knocks. Either way, you have about 12 months. You should, after 12 or so months, have a good idea if it's gonna work. If you can't make that decision on your own, then you are in dire need of some Management. You don't need to go to Paul Graham to get it.
2. AFTER you are making some money with a workable widget 2.0. reassess. From here, you work with a great clarity that is not available to a Paul Graham graduate. If you want the big VC $$ it will take a great deal of time, effort and money to get. In fact, it's probably a full-time job on its own.
For the Moonlighting crowd: You will need to work MUCH more smartly than the Quitting My Job starter because the pace of "ground breaking innovative Widget 2.0" is limited. If you are good at whatever you want to start, then there should be success despite the Job Quitter that is competing against you.
Your success STILL needs to be measured in dollars. Forget Youtube style VC burn for now, but concentrate on generating revenue. Despite working less at it, it MUST make money with a pretty clear path to replacing your salary and benefits.
________Tips for either group_________ You must know what you need and how much you are willing to give away to get it. Hint: 5% is a whole heck of a lot of equity to put on the table.
Grow on your own revenue. Don't be tempted by the other ways to do it. If you have a good business, it will grow on its own.
There are too many barriers to youtube-like startups in the U.S. Seriously consider starting it someplace you'd like to emigrate. VC capital is wasted largely on lawyers in some way, shape or form in the U.S. If you are tempted by the conventional public offering, the amount of money the banks sucks up is absolutely shocking. This is one reason why Google cut some of the bankers out in their IPO.
Stay flexible. Chances are excellent what you started out doing for money will be somewhat different than what actually brings the money in.
1. I believe the framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that governments that have multi-party systems don't work. So, they structured things to sort themselves out into a couple of parties. Maybe someone else can verify/clarify this some more, but a few-party system was never viewed as a problem.
2. all either one has to do is beat the other party... Your simplified statement strikes a cord. But when it comes down to election time, voters are more considerate than you give them credit and the competition benefits voters.
3. NEITHER ONE really is looking out for preserving the democratic ideals That responsibility does not belong to the political parties. That responsibility lies with the voters. When people let the Executive branch dramatically expand their powers and actively pursue unlimited executive powers for years now then the only place to look for what's wrong is at each other.
The current administration enacted tax, spending and host of other policies that directly affects general economic well being. As history shows, executive policies have direct effects on citizens. Look at the economic policies during/after the Great Depression as an example.
I'm asking if./'ers think if they are better or worse off, depending on whether or not the story in discussion is true or not.
or any one of a number of tasks that have to be done locally or require interpersonal skills. That's well and good, but the last time I checked the wealthiest 2% never includes bricklayers.
Either way, are/.'ers better economically better or worse off with the current political leadership?
It also leads me to wonder what valuable service do most middle-americans offer each other and the world that can't be had anywhere else? This, I believe, is the basis of the economic crisis that has yet to unfold in America.
As much as they want it to look like there's impartiality, it has not been the case for at least a decade.
If you are a news/reviews-outlet-making-money-from-subscription s that's bigger than running the operation out of your house, you can't say ANYTHING overtly bad, even if you stick to the facts. Let's not forget that review product is tested quite well before it leaves the office too. The chances that it's production equipment are slim too.
The ideal media source would buy something off the retail shelf and go from there. Which would result in high subscription prices, which consumers won't pay.
History has shown that "Free markets" are temporary.
At some point, producers will do any number of things to capture a market like coordinate pricing or capture all suppliers or capture all distribution channels. It takes legislation to minimize these effects. Then the legislation has unintended effects on markets too.
The "free markets" you describe are academic standards that are impossible to meet.
The bad news is, once the media conglomerate PHB's stop taking meetings about next year's bonuses, they'll finally comprehend that storing private keys on the media they sell is a bad idea.
They'll force Trusted Platform Computing as a new and cheaper High Definition format. The private keys will then be stored on a smart card module. Smart cards run their own OS and are quite specifically designed to self-destruct in the event specific programmed communication protocols are not followed.
Bad guys just sniff the data channel then right? Well, the data channel will be encrypted (about version 3.0, but eventually) Then what? Then they you, your computer AND the media player device and your media are merely rented, just like cable TV with even more harm done to new/independent sources of media.
In the "ownership society" era we are in right now, the limits to your media will continue to expand. This is a perfect example of the consequences politically expedient "free market" and some Libertarian pablum. Those whacky Socialist/Communist ideas that Americans love to hate start looking pretty good. Of course, no American will admit it and call it something new, like "Consumer Friendly Media."
If you've read this far, then what are you going to do about it? Most likely just welcome our new media conglomerate overlords.
No it doesn't. Online transactions can be quite secure with an EMV compatible smart card and smart card reader. There's even open source middleware for it.
Verisign is adding no value other than their brand.
Verisign is totally Jumping the Shark on this one.
Well, except Mono is a small project that Microsoft would rather see die. It will disappear when they are ready to drop litigation bombs.
What disturbs me more is how the term "open source" has been co-opted and soiled by Microsoft when the license terms which will only be FSF approved when microsoft owns the FSF.
10x cheap still isn't expensive for those willing to pay the extra few bucks for increased security.
So far, the bank has 1 customer, you. Banks will pass all of their new card, IT systems, employee training, legal overhead, costs onto you. Given there are clever managers in banks, I'm sure they'll find some other costs for you to pay. That makes the card you want to order in the double-digit-millions of dollars.
Now, what about the going forward costs of promoting and implementing the backend software that is required? Are you going to pay that too? How are you going to get web sites to add this special code to their systems? You've got NO leverage. You are the only cardholder.
Not only does the bank have no interest in doing this, retailers won't either. So, you and I still assume the burden of fraud and the banks get to keep their healthy profits. Banks win. You lose.
massive amount of fraud that the credit companies face
No. The burden of payment fraud falls on you. This is a simple fact. Sadly, you aren't aware of this.
Read the following carefully. Re-read it if necessary.
Banks do NOT assume the costs associated with fraud. The merchants accepting bank cards assume the cost of the fraudulent transaction. Let me give you an example:
I buy a book from amazon.com with a stolen credit card, Amazon eats the cost of the book and the transaction PLUS those charges have to be reversed, and the merchant pays for the reversal.
Where is the bank losing money??? They are not. In fact, the retailer passes the costs onto you. Banks win. You lose. Time to move on.
What you fail to acknowledge is the merchant and, eventually you and I pay those fraud costs. Banks do not assume the costs associated with fraud. Period. Therefore, the bank card system works pretty good for the banks.
You also are completely unaware there is a rather secure banking standard used in many parts of the industrialized world. If _that_ was implemented we'd be much better off. But the banks can shift the costs of the standard, so it doesn't get implemented.
If you base an OSS banking system... Cryptography is not a magic bullet. Transparency and accountability, the kind associated with stable markets and Free software are much more effective tools. And, the kind of trustworthy hardware you think doesn't exist costs about $20-$30 depending on the config. Doesn't need a secure PC either.
This technology has been around for some time actually. If there are any smart card developers hanging about, they might point you in the right direction.
As someone with intimate knowledge of bank card costs and the infrastructure required to support a new bank card, the likelihood of this happening is slim to none. "Impossible!" you say. Please consider the following.
1. The cost of producing these cards is extremely high relative to the plastic most users have. On order of 10x.
2. The costs of integrating a new kind of card into banking/CRM infrastructure is another huge cost center.
3. The banks can't shift the costs of this new-fangled card off to the merchants. FYI: The merchants shift the cost of accepting bank cards and paying for fraudulent transactions to all consumers.
The project will be a nice idea that they can use as an example to regulators that they are "enhancing customer security." but is destined for the shelf.
What's needed here is an OSS banking system, not the one we currently have.
Slashdot Mirror
Would anyone be surprised if the exchange captured most of those cost savings for themselves?
I think another post is onto something:
1. IBM screwed up the relationship so badly that the NYSE is walking away.
2. IBM has some other, greater, revenue opportunity.
3. Something is going on inside IBM where the sales people can steal each other's customers.
Your thinking on the matter concerns me:
n zales/ I don't know anything about the site, but it's a nice summary and should have been the story the media told following the hearing that day. It gets to why this matters in a hurry, because it's not about hiring/firing.
The reason this _should_ be an issue is the principal of separation of powers has been sodomized by the current administration.
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases.
I copied this whole-cloth from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/20/whitehouse-go
Yes, right now Obama looks like the white knight that will save America. But it's early in the presidential politics:
1. In order to get the BIG presidential campaign donations, he's got to give up all of these white knight traits.
2. The history of presidential politics is littered with well-intentioned white knights. Possibly the most ethical president in a long time, Jimmy Carter couldn't make it into a second term.
You would do well to stop anthropomorphizing Obama and begin to comprehend the extent to which the fundamental nature of the balance of powers in this country have been altered in the last 6 years.
here here!
US Attorney firings is a non-story
And you wonder why the American government is such a mess?
The AG is serving the Administration's political ends first, the laws of the U.S. second. The law was supposed to guide this country, not the Executive Branch. The consequences of allowing this behavior are permanently altering the fundamental idea of balance of powers in this country.
That is hard to compress into media that sells, especially when citizens don't understand HOW their government is supposed to work! That includes you...
You and the numb skulls who modded you insightful would do well to review the term "Separation of Powers" and our Constitution.
I read the article. She had some requirements up front that exclude her running Etch.
It should not come as a surprise that she is really indifferent to Free (as in speech) software. She wants her hardware to "just" work. This unfortunately excludes a default Debian Etch. I've been through Sarge and Etch and I think Ubuntu competition has only benefited the Debian project because Etch is a far superior release of Free software. Yes, non-free is out there and relatively painless, but it still requires some stuff that she specifically did not want to do.
I would encourage potential Ubuntu users to give Debian Etch a spin first. It's much, much more reliable, has many different installers including the excellent graphical installer and is a huge improvement over Sarge, pretty much blowing away the old complaints about Debian.
I'm really not sure where all the moral outrage is coming from because this is the consequence of an ownership society where privatization is blindly assumed to be, not just good, but the best thing.
This kind of posturing and eventual law enforcement activity where they'll perp-walk someone for some kind of copyright violation will get votes and most importantly raise campaign contributions.
I suspect more than a few slashdotters think that "the private sector does a better job at most things than the government.." The private sector is maximizing their revenues by enforcing its ownership rights and NOW it's a problem?
Pre-emptive disclosure works against the typical closed source company.
Option 1:
Exploit is published, patch is delivered really quickly. Sysadmin thinks, "Those guys at company X are on top of it..." PHB will say the same.
Option 2:
Unilaterally announce fixes, make patches available. Sysadmin doesn't bother to read the whole announcement and whines because it makes work she doesn't understand or think is urgent. PHB thinks "Gee company X's software isn't very good, look at all the patches..."
The market for secure software is small even smaller if you add standards compliance. Microsoft is a shining example of how large the market is for insecure, non-standard software.
...slowly building new fans online, playing live occasionally, making a solid living but never a crazy-rich one.
1. I'm old enough to remember when that's exactly what punk rock was and most not-pop music genres still are.
2. I happen to interact with a number of musicians and a few actors who had what most people would describe as "celebrity" scale careers. There are a few that can _only_ talk about themselves with everything they do pretty much is about them. They can be no fun if you don't pay attention to them exclusively. Putting two in the same room is just like high-school drama. What's worse is they have children. No, 24-7 nanny care doesn't mitigate the damage. That said, there are many who are decent creative people that happen to act/perform for a living. This guy sounds like he fits the latter.
Today's lesson: there's definitely a group of celebrities that actively pursue the drama and trivial hoopla that's so popular.
Obviously Microsoft won't touch IBM.
This is about litigation that do NOT draw IBM into the fight.
It's likely they'll attack a company using OSS software. The point, just like the RIAA's litigation of individuals is to instill fear in the form of litigation costs into the business decision.
The thing is, they can keep coming back into court with new patent litigation against new OSS consumers. Individuals and companies who have specifically been chosen because they can't afford to litigate.
It will cost Microsoft practically nothing, as they transition away from actually producing something to simply charging an innovation tax.
Here's a quick and dirty run down of what one SHOULD do if they want to start a business.
There's a fork at the beginning of the road: Quit your job or keep your job and commit to your startup as best you can.
For the Quitting My Job crowd:
1. Make an actual living at it ASAP. If you can't, then forget it. If others around you are, and you can't for some reason, there simply isn't the time to learn the hard knocks. Either way, you have about 12 months. You should, after 12 or so months, have a good idea if it's gonna work. If you can't make that decision on your own, then you are in dire need of some Management. You don't need to go to Paul Graham to get it.
2. AFTER you are making some money with a workable widget 2.0. reassess. From here, you work with a great clarity that is not available to a Paul Graham graduate. If you want the big VC $$ it will take a great deal of time, effort and money to get. In fact, it's probably a full-time job on its own.
For the Moonlighting crowd:
You will need to work MUCH more smartly than the Quitting My Job starter because the pace of "ground breaking innovative Widget 2.0" is limited. If you are good at whatever you want to start, then there should be success despite the Job Quitter that is competing against you.
Your success STILL needs to be measured in dollars. Forget Youtube style VC burn for now, but concentrate on generating revenue. Despite working less at it, it MUST make money with a pretty clear path to replacing your salary and benefits.
________Tips for either group_________
You must know what you need and how much you are willing to give away to get it. Hint: 5% is a whole heck of a lot of equity to put on the table.
Grow on your own revenue. Don't be tempted by the other ways to do it. If you have a good business, it will grow on its own.
There are too many barriers to youtube-like startups in the U.S. Seriously consider starting it someplace you'd like to emigrate. VC capital is wasted largely on lawyers in some way, shape or form in the U.S. If you are tempted by the conventional public offering, the amount of money the banks sucks up is absolutely shocking. This is one reason why Google cut some of the bankers out in their IPO.
Stay flexible. Chances are excellent what you started out doing for money will be somewhat different than what actually brings the money in.
1. I believe the framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that governments that have multi-party systems don't work. So, they structured things to sort themselves out into a couple of parties. Maybe someone else can verify/clarify this some more, but a few-party system was never viewed as a problem.
2. all either one has to do is beat the other party...
Your simplified statement strikes a cord. But when it comes down to election time, voters are more considerate than you give them credit and the competition benefits voters.
3. NEITHER ONE really is looking out for preserving the democratic ideals
That responsibility does not belong to the political parties. That responsibility lies with the voters. When people let the Executive branch dramatically expand their powers and actively pursue unlimited executive powers for years now then the only place to look for what's wrong is at each other.
What does that have to do with anything?
./'ers think if they are better or worse off, depending on whether or not the story in discussion is true or not.
The current administration enacted tax, spending and host of other policies that directly affects general economic well being. As history shows, executive policies have direct effects on citizens. Look at the economic policies during/after the Great Depression as an example.
I'm asking if
or any one of a number of tasks that have to be done locally or require interpersonal skills.
That's well and good, but the last time I checked the wealthiest 2% never includes bricklayers.
The claim may not be true.
/.'ers better economically better or worse off with the current political leadership?
Either way, are
It also leads me to wonder what valuable service do most middle-americans offer each other and the world that can't be had anywhere else? This, I believe, is the basis of the economic crisis that has yet to unfold in America.
As much as they want it to look like there's impartiality, it has not been the case for at least a decade.
n s that's bigger than running the operation out of your house, you can't say ANYTHING overtly bad, even if you stick to the facts. Let's not forget that review product is tested quite well before it leaves the office too. The chances that it's production equipment are slim too.
If you are a news/reviews-outlet-making-money-from-subscriptio
The ideal media source would buy something off the retail shelf and go from there. Which would result in high subscription prices, which consumers won't pay.
History has shown that "Free markets" are temporary.
At some point, producers will do any number of things to capture a market like coordinate pricing or capture all suppliers or capture all distribution channels. It takes legislation to minimize these effects. Then the legislation has unintended effects on markets too.
The "free markets" you describe are academic standards that are impossible to meet.
The bad news is, once the media conglomerate PHB's stop taking meetings about next year's bonuses, they'll finally comprehend that storing private keys on the media they sell is a bad idea.
They'll force Trusted Platform Computing as a new and cheaper High Definition format. The private keys will then be stored on a smart card module. Smart cards run their own OS and are quite specifically designed to self-destruct in the event specific programmed communication protocols are not followed.
Bad guys just sniff the data channel then right? Well, the data channel will be encrypted (about version 3.0, but eventually) Then what? Then they you, your computer AND the media player device and your media are merely rented, just like cable TV with even more harm done to new/independent sources of media.
In the "ownership society" era we are in right now, the limits to your media will continue to expand. This is a perfect example of the consequences politically expedient "free market" and some Libertarian pablum. Those whacky Socialist/Communist ideas that Americans love to hate start looking pretty good. Of course, no American will admit it and call it something new, like "Consumer Friendly Media."
If you've read this far, then what are you going to do about it? Most likely just welcome our new media conglomerate overlords.
I can't believe this comment was modded down when history repeatedly shows Microsoft over promising and under delivering.
IE7 and Vista are two examples that were loaded with desirable features when they were vaporware.
the only additional cost the banks have is the card itself
And that's where you are wrong. Card management is a boring topic, so I won't bother. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
Reasonable speculation follows:....
No it doesn't. Online transactions can be quite secure with an EMV compatible smart card and smart card reader. There's even open source middleware for it.
Verisign is adding no value other than their brand.
Verisign is totally Jumping the Shark on this one.
Well, except Mono is a small project that Microsoft would rather see die. It will disappear when they are ready to drop litigation bombs.
What disturbs me more is how the term "open source" has been co-opted and soiled by Microsoft when the license terms which will only be FSF approved when microsoft owns the FSF.
10x cheap still isn't expensive for those willing to pay the extra few bucks for increased security.
So far, the bank has 1 customer, you. Banks will pass all of their new card, IT systems, employee training, legal overhead, costs onto you. Given there are clever managers in banks, I'm sure they'll find some other costs for you to pay. That makes the card you want to order in the double-digit-millions of dollars.
Now, what about the going forward costs of promoting and implementing the backend software that is required? Are you going to pay that too? How are you going to get web sites to add this special code to their systems? You've got NO leverage. You are the only cardholder.
Not only does the bank have no interest in doing this, retailers won't either. So, you and I still assume the burden of fraud and the banks get to keep their healthy profits. Banks win. You lose.
massive amount of fraud that the credit companies face
No. The burden of payment fraud falls on you. This is a simple fact. Sadly, you aren't aware of this.
Read the following carefully. Re-read it if necessary.
Banks do NOT assume the costs associated with fraud. The merchants accepting bank cards assume the cost of the fraudulent transaction. Let me give you an example:
I buy a book from amazon.com with a stolen credit card, Amazon eats the cost of the book and the transaction PLUS those charges have to be reversed, and the merchant pays for the reversal.
Where is the bank losing money??? They are not. In fact, the retailer passes the costs onto you. Banks win. You lose. Time to move on.
... stem the losses from credit card fraud.
What you fail to acknowledge is the merchant and, eventually you and I pay those fraud costs. Banks do not assume the costs associated with fraud. Period. Therefore, the bank card system works pretty good for the banks.
You also are completely unaware there is a rather secure banking standard used in many parts of the industrialized world. If _that_ was implemented we'd be much better off. But the banks can shift the costs of the standard, so it doesn't get implemented.
If you base an OSS banking system...
Cryptography is not a magic bullet. Transparency and accountability, the kind associated with stable markets and Free software are much more effective tools. And, the kind of trustworthy hardware you think doesn't exist costs about $20-$30 depending on the config. Doesn't need a secure PC either.
Verisign is Jumping the Shark
This technology has been around for some time actually. If there are any smart card developers hanging about, they might point you in the right direction.
As someone with intimate knowledge of bank card costs and the infrastructure required to support a new bank card, the likelihood of this happening is slim to none. "Impossible!" you say. Please consider the following.
1. The cost of producing these cards is extremely high relative to the plastic most users have. On order of 10x.
2. The costs of integrating a new kind of card into banking/CRM infrastructure is another huge cost center.
3. The banks can't shift the costs of this new-fangled card off to the merchants. FYI: The merchants shift the cost of accepting bank cards and paying for fraudulent transactions to all consumers.
The project will be a nice idea that they can use as an example to regulators that they are "enhancing customer security." but is destined for the shelf.
What's needed here is an OSS banking system, not the one we currently have.