So tell the provider you'd prefer to use that they could have your business (and likely many others) for the low cost of a simple phone call and someone's time to fill out a couple of forms. Really, that's all it takes to get T-mobile to zero-rate your music streaming service. Hell, they'll even zero-rate your private server for that purpose; I stream from mine all the time and it never costs me (though I'm now on unlimited LTE, I did get my server zero-rated when I had a cap).
Not true, actually. Engineers (remember, trains don't have drivers) actually watch the track ahead of them and respond to various conditions, including animals on track, broken down trains on track, and, perhaps most importantly, idiots standing on the yellow tiles at the station. You've clearly never ridden... or you'd have some idea just how often the engineer has to stop short of the station while the station manager gets on the PA to tell people to get off the yellow tiles, while everyone else waiting to get on the train is deciding whether to pull them back from the track, or push them onto it for delaying the train. Engineers also respond to various issues with the train itself; for example, I was on a car that had a stuck brake once; it took the engineer one stop to determine what the problem was, another to determine which car, and a third to get the attitude of that car and the car on either side of it adjusted such that the affected car remained level while the affected wheel was lifted off the track enough to alleviate the risk of the brake spontaneously combusting without making the train unstable. Once that train reached the end of the line, the affected car was removed, but the engineer had to get it there, first. Even track switching isn't automated on the BART system, so the engineers do that as well.
If it's not about CS, it doesn't belong in the CS curriculum. If you can't see the fact that it's there, where it does not belong, as a problem, you have a problem.
Of course they are, they've got nothing better to do while they wait for the hackers to verify receipt of the wire transfer, or for IT to restore from the most recent backup set.
And if they do manage to track you down, you submit working exploit code as evidence. They either drop the case before the exploit is entered into evidence (where it becomes a matter of public record a-la DeCSS) or, well, you were going away for it anyway, right?
So, then, what's lacking is self respect, which brings with it a desire to put forth your best effort when putting your name on something (and cashiers' names are quite often right on their receipts, so I mean it both figuratively and literally in this case), no matter how insignificant others may find the task. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to carry on with a job you can't even respect yourself for doing.
And I actually think that sounds about right. The other two cashier-trained employees who could follow the procedure were of the confident and self-respecting type; everyone else on the front end was sent home without pay for inability to do their job, about half of them were let go after their next annual review as a result of the inability to perform this simple task. Who, with any self-respect and even slightly below average intelligence, is going to be willing to lose a day's pay and risk their job to play dumb and not use a calculator when the registers are down?
I could see your argument if they were simply moved to a different department when the registers went down, and allowed to continue working and getting paid; but these were regular cashiers, not cashier-trained employees from other departments. Their options were do the job or go home without pay. Period.
The stumbling point was the math, not the calling for prices, as they have to call for prices periodically, anyway. Their inability to use a 4 function calculator for addition and multiplication has nothing to do with willingness to learn company procedures.
What's insecure about magstripes is that they use a fixed number. This is not true of magnetic inductance transmission, which can work just like NFC (with a different number or token per transaction), with the exception being that the magstripe reader is used instead of an NFC radio.
No, it's actually making them dumber. Think about it; there used to be a time when people had to know how to carry out many of the operations for which a computer is now commonly used but, now, everyone uses computers for these things and relatively few people know how do conduct their daily business without one. For example, every large retailer has a POS-down sales procedure, so they don't have to close up shop just because registers are offline, but you'll see maybe one cashier out of the entire store staff actually able to follow that procedure. And it's not typically difficult: if price is not marked, call someone in the appropriate department for the price; add price to the appropriate subtotal (e.g. taxed or non-taxed); multiply taxed subtotal by tax percentage to calculate tax, then add tad and both subtotals to get your final total. That's how it worked when I worked in retail, and I was one of 3 cashiers (and I wasn't even a cashier!) in the store who knew the procedure; I had to be pulled from my department if registers went off line, because there weren't enough active cashiers otherwise.
And yes, it was still possible to process credit cards (just not debit with PIN), manually, over the phone. Identify (e.g. provide customer number and store name), provide card number and expiration, total to be charged, and jot down the confirmation code and card number if approved. Accounting had the fun task of manually entering the transactions when the system came back up, but it worked and, between the three of us who knew what we were doing, worked well.
Mind you, that was 3 out of a couple dozen, all of whom had been through the same training. The problem wasn't the procedure, it was the cashiers' inability to use a calculator for simple addition and multiplication. Because having the computer do it for them made them dumb.
Remember that we're talking about first grade arithmetic and using a basic 4-function calculator. Things most people forget how to do a couple years out of high school.
There's nothing inherent in NFC that enables this; it's a function of the payment software and, thus, can be applied to magnetic inductance transmission as well. In fact, Samsung Pay does this; the number changes after every transaction.
So true, and it applies everywhere. For example, we're not making life any easier by making computers more accessible, we're just making people dumber.
They'll still be used for gift cards (including reloadable Visa and Mastercard cards), store cards, and in cases where a chip has failed. Also, the liability shift (which took place last October for everything but pay-at-the-pump transactions, which will happen next October) does not apply to the token IDs issued by card issuers for services like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay. Mag readers aren't going anywhere.
You know that the NFC reader will work for Google Pay and Samsung Pay, too, right? That said, Samsung Pay will also use an electromagnetic coil to communicate directly with the magstripe reader, so that'll work on any terminal.
Of course, that begs the question: why use NFC at all, when the magstripe reader already exists everywhere and is many times more reliable?
I'm honestly not sure why we're using NFC and requiring special terminals for this anyway. Look at Samsung Pay, which tries NFC, then falls back to using an electromagnetic coil to communicate with a magstripe reader. That works with every terminal. So, my question is why use NFC for this at all?
You're an "engineer", aren't you? Not an actual, trained and licensed, engineer, but someone who fancies himself an "engineer". I can tell, because you're giving a typical "engineer" response: "Your argument is external to the problem and, therefore, irrelevant." Well, the "problem" under discussion is traffic lights on roads and pedestrians, while typically an externality when it comes to roads, do often have to cross them, which makes their reliance on such lights relevant. Also, motorcycles, those run on roads, and need to be considered. As for how I got to motion sickness and the need for windows in vehicles, well... anyone reading along and actually paying attention already figured that out.
Sorry being me the one bringing you the bad news but no, today is not the day you find a critical flaw in the study it took a MIT team to come with.
A real engineer, someone cut from the right cloth for it, considers such externalities as they actually affect the problem. You failed to do so; and the MIT team doing this study didn't need to as the study was intended to be purely theoretical. Of course, if pedestrians ceased to exist and all vehicles were autonomous, we could do away with traffic signals. That's hypothetical, at best, and that was the intent of the study; the discussion you interjected yourself into was about how the study fails to apply to reality which, in all honestly, is a perfectly fine thing for a theoretical study to fail to do.
Also, thank you for that broken English, letting me know this is not your native language. I feel as though that might explain (not excuse) some of your misunderstanding. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but no, I was not trying to find a flaw in the MIT study, so you have not prevented me from doing so. You're the one grasping at straws to apply a theoretical study to the real world, but the study didn't account for many variables which prevent this from working, because it did not have to. The study, in all honesty, amounts to "if there were no people, we wouldn't need traffic lights", which is about as obvious as it comes; no MIT education necessary.
If there are more Android developers than iOS developers, iOS can not be the reason more developers use OS X. It's simple arithmetic. Claiming otherwise is like blaming the last straw for breaking the camel's back, ignoring the thousands of others that contributed, to a greater degree, to the event.
human average reaction time for an unexpected circumstance on-road: around 1,25 s
I not only acknowledged that, I explained why that doesn't matter. Simply put, it's because we're not worrying over reaction time, we're worrying over perception of all inputs (to the human, not to the vehicle) agreeing with each other, as motion sickness is triggered when they do not. It does matter, because any perceptible delay (and the difference between data traveling through a mile of circuit, with various delays as it moves from acquisition, to memory, to processing, back to memory, then to the signaling device, be it auditory or visual, versus light traveling through 1/8" of glass, is perceptible; there's a reason people get motion-sick with virtual reality) will trigger it. Again, you're ignoring what I'm saying and arguing with what you want me to be saying.
Ok: so the problem here is that you just lack the required modicum of engineering knowledge or how -even current, traffic signaling works.
Electromechanical or purely computer-driven? That I know to ask should tell you something.
You know what will end that? If we do it. If we just stop contributing and make 1/3 of the world's population do all the work to support the whole. Suddenly, we'll be allowed to contribute again. Or, just do what most of us do, be a damn adult and realize that the demands of a relatively few highly vocal idiots would lead to the destruction of society, ignore them, and carry on as always. Let them learn that they have to be willing to contribute something worthwhile in order for their contribution to be accepted; most of the minority population has realized this already and they contribute what they can, it is only the vocal few who have nothing more to contribute than their loud mouths who aren't contributing in any useful or meaningful way.
You know, I just realized that might be a bit more text than you might be able to process. Let me slim it down for you a bit: choice is only a problem if you're not intelligent enough to handle it.
You explain that electrons through a circuit move at the same speed as light through a window, which, while technically correct, is a fallacy as, as I explained (and you ignored), the circuit is a much longer path and the delay is measurable. You pick the points I am making, rather than the facts that back them up, to attack; you do this because you have no facts of your own to argue with and the audience here is generally smart enough to see that.
Also, you can compromise an automatic door with $20 worth of electronics, no smartphone needed. And how do you propose the system you describe would signal the vehicle? Hackable, recordable, replayable, jammable radio waves? Lights are a fair bitbetter suited for this type of signaling, as they not only provide signal data, but also easily verifiable sourxe data. Where is that radio wave coming from? You can approximate the direction and guess, but you can actually see where the light is. The same applies to cars.
If the discussion is about whether or not we'll need traffic lights in the future, the fact that people need them is extremely relevant. Since I can't seen to illustrate that well enough for you with people inside, let's consider the ones outside, who will still be riding bikes, running, jogging, and walking. All of this will occur adjacent to, on, or across roadways and any of it could result in abrupt speed deltas (think cyclist hits small rock, or swerves suddenly around it, ending up in the path of a vehicle, or pedestrian trips and falls into street). And pedestrians needing to cross? Lights.
As for motion sickness, that actually has damn near nothing to do with delta and basically everything to do with cues not matching up. No matter how fast the vehicle can throw up its own cues, there will always be some delay (as the signals travel through a mile or more of wire, trace, and computational pathway, and as the data moves from sensor to RAM to CPU to signaling device, and as the vehicle's on-board computer analyzes and processes to determine if a specific cue is important) and any delay is enough to cause issues for a large number of people. A window solves that and a light helps. So yes, it is important to the matter at hand, making the people in the vehicle relevant to the discussion.
Sure, the computer can process and react more quickly than a human, even a well-trained human, but there is still (and, the laws of physics dictate, always will be) considerable delay.
About half of ny examples relate to windows on the vehicle, moreso than lights on the roadway, and there is a good reason for that. The next logical step from "the cars don't need lights" is "people in the cars don't need to see where they're going". These are both false statements, however, as cars will still need lights to control how they affect the flow of traffic they cannot communicate with (pedestrians, for whom a light will still be necessary, even if the car can be signalled by radio, though I'll also illustrate why that is a horrible idea) and people still need windows to avoid motion sickness and be able to brace when a sensor fails (or a pedestrian with a smartphone ans $20 worth of electronics sends a BRAKE HARD signal) and the vehicle fucks up.
Slashdot Mirror
So tell the provider you'd prefer to use that they could have your business (and likely many others) for the low cost of a simple phone call and someone's time to fill out a couple of forms. Really, that's all it takes to get T-mobile to zero-rate your music streaming service. Hell, they'll even zero-rate your private server for that purpose; I stream from mine all the time and it never costs me (though I'm now on unlimited LTE, I did get my server zero-rated when I had a cap).
They don't charge a cent for it. Really.
Not true, actually. Engineers (remember, trains don't have drivers) actually watch the track ahead of them and respond to various conditions, including animals on track, broken down trains on track, and, perhaps most importantly, idiots standing on the yellow tiles at the station. You've clearly never ridden... or you'd have some idea just how often the engineer has to stop short of the station while the station manager gets on the PA to tell people to get off the yellow tiles, while everyone else waiting to get on the train is deciding whether to pull them back from the track, or push them onto it for delaying the train. Engineers also respond to various issues with the train itself; for example, I was on a car that had a stuck brake once; it took the engineer one stop to determine what the problem was, another to determine which car, and a third to get the attitude of that car and the car on either side of it adjusted such that the affected car remained level while the affected wheel was lifted off the track enough to alleviate the risk of the brake spontaneously combusting without making the train unstable. Once that train reached the end of the line, the affected car was removed, but the engineer had to get it there, first. Even track switching isn't automated on the BART system, so the engineers do that as well.
If it's not about CS, it doesn't belong in the CS curriculum. If you can't see the fact that it's there, where it does not belong, as a problem, you have a problem.
Of course they are, they've got nothing better to do while they wait for the hackers to verify receipt of the wire transfer, or for IT to restore from the most recent backup set.
And if they do manage to track you down, you submit working exploit code as evidence. They either drop the case before the exploit is entered into evidence (where it becomes a matter of public record a-la DeCSS) or, well, you were going away for it anyway, right?
So, then, what's lacking is self respect, which brings with it a desire to put forth your best effort when putting your name on something (and cashiers' names are quite often right on their receipts, so I mean it both figuratively and literally in this case), no matter how insignificant others may find the task. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to carry on with a job you can't even respect yourself for doing.
And I actually think that sounds about right. The other two cashier-trained employees who could follow the procedure were of the confident and self-respecting type; everyone else on the front end was sent home without pay for inability to do their job, about half of them were let go after their next annual review as a result of the inability to perform this simple task. Who, with any self-respect and even slightly below average intelligence, is going to be willing to lose a day's pay and risk their job to play dumb and not use a calculator when the registers are down?
I could see your argument if they were simply moved to a different department when the registers went down, and allowed to continue working and getting paid; but these were regular cashiers, not cashier-trained employees from other departments. Their options were do the job or go home without pay. Period.
Which brings us back to people simply being dumb.
The stumbling point was the math, not the calling for prices, as they have to call for prices periodically, anyway. Their inability to use a 4 function calculator for addition and multiplication has nothing to do with willingness to learn company procedures.
What's insecure about magstripes is that they use a fixed number. This is not true of magnetic inductance transmission, which can work just like NFC (with a different number or token per transaction), with the exception being that the magstripe reader is used instead of an NFC radio.
No, it's actually making them dumber. Think about it; there used to be a time when people had to know how to carry out many of the operations for which a computer is now commonly used but, now, everyone uses computers for these things and relatively few people know how do conduct their daily business without one. For example, every large retailer has a POS-down sales procedure, so they don't have to close up shop just because registers are offline, but you'll see maybe one cashier out of the entire store staff actually able to follow that procedure. And it's not typically difficult: if price is not marked, call someone in the appropriate department for the price; add price to the appropriate subtotal (e.g. taxed or non-taxed); multiply taxed subtotal by tax percentage to calculate tax, then add tad and both subtotals to get your final total. That's how it worked when I worked in retail, and I was one of 3 cashiers (and I wasn't even a cashier!) in the store who knew the procedure; I had to be pulled from my department if registers went off line, because there weren't enough active cashiers otherwise.
And yes, it was still possible to process credit cards (just not debit with PIN), manually, over the phone. Identify (e.g. provide customer number and store name), provide card number and expiration, total to be charged, and jot down the confirmation code and card number if approved. Accounting had the fun task of manually entering the transactions when the system came back up, but it worked and, between the three of us who knew what we were doing, worked well.
Mind you, that was 3 out of a couple dozen, all of whom had been through the same training. The problem wasn't the procedure, it was the cashiers' inability to use a calculator for simple addition and multiplication. Because having the computer do it for them made them dumb.
Remember that we're talking about first grade arithmetic and using a basic 4-function calculator. Things most people forget how to do a couple years out of high school.
There's nothing inherent in NFC that enables this; it's a function of the payment software and, thus, can be applied to magnetic inductance transmission as well. In fact, Samsung Pay does this; the number changes after every transaction.
Plus people seem to get dumber the easier it gets
So true, and it applies everywhere. For example, we're not making life any easier by making computers more accessible, we're just making people dumber.
NFC is no more secure than using one-time tokens over magnetic induction. If the token only works once, there is no chance of replay.
They'll still be used for gift cards (including reloadable Visa and Mastercard cards), store cards, and in cases where a chip has failed. Also, the liability shift (which took place last October for everything but pay-at-the-pump transactions, which will happen next October) does not apply to the token IDs issued by card issuers for services like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay. Mag readers aren't going anywhere.
You know that the NFC reader will work for Google Pay and Samsung Pay, too, right? That said, Samsung Pay will also use an electromagnetic coil to communicate directly with the magstripe reader, so that'll work on any terminal.
Of course, that begs the question: why use NFC at all, when the magstripe reader already exists everywhere and is many times more reliable?
I'm honestly not sure why we're using NFC and requiring special terminals for this anyway. Look at Samsung Pay, which tries NFC, then falls back to using an electromagnetic coil to communicate with a magstripe reader. That works with every terminal. So, my question is why use NFC for this at all?
... pedestrians aren't an unrelated externality. I'm not sure if you're a high-quality idiot or a low-quality troll.
Sorry being me the one bringing you the bad news but no, today is not the day you find a critical flaw in the study it took a MIT team to come with.
A real engineer, someone cut from the right cloth for it, considers such externalities as they actually affect the problem. You failed to do so; and the MIT team doing this study didn't need to as the study was intended to be purely theoretical. Of course, if pedestrians ceased to exist and all vehicles were autonomous, we could do away with traffic signals. That's hypothetical, at best, and that was the intent of the study; the discussion you interjected yourself into was about how the study fails to apply to reality which, in all honestly, is a perfectly fine thing for a theoretical study to fail to do.
Also, thank you for that broken English, letting me know this is not your native language. I feel as though that might explain (not excuse) some of your misunderstanding. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but no, I was not trying to find a flaw in the MIT study, so you have not prevented me from doing so. You're the one grasping at straws to apply a theoretical study to the real world, but the study didn't account for many variables which prevent this from working, because it did not have to. The study, in all honesty, amounts to "if there were no people, we wouldn't need traffic lights", which is about as obvious as it comes; no MIT education necessary.
Go back and read, I addressed why half of my arguments have nothing to do with traffic lights.
If there are more Android developers than iOS developers, iOS can not be the reason more developers use OS X. It's simple arithmetic. Claiming otherwise is like blaming the last straw for breaking the camel's back, ignoring the thousands of others that contributed, to a greater degree, to the event.
human average reaction time for an unexpected circumstance on-road: around 1,25 s
I not only acknowledged that, I explained why that doesn't matter. Simply put, it's because we're not worrying over reaction time, we're worrying over perception of all inputs (to the human, not to the vehicle) agreeing with each other, as motion sickness is triggered when they do not. It does matter, because any perceptible delay (and the difference between data traveling through a mile of circuit, with various delays as it moves from acquisition, to memory, to processing, back to memory, then to the signaling device, be it auditory or visual, versus light traveling through 1/8" of glass, is perceptible; there's a reason people get motion-sick with virtual reality) will trigger it. Again, you're ignoring what I'm saying and arguing with what you want me to be saying.
Ok: so the problem here is that you just lack the required modicum of engineering knowledge or how -even current, traffic signaling works.
Electromechanical or purely computer-driven? That I know to ask should tell you something.
Did not know that re: the X menu; thanks. Funny thing about my sig... I've done it... and I'm not sure when I'll have to time to fix it.
You know what will end that? If we do it. If we just stop contributing and make 1/3 of the world's population do all the work to support the whole. Suddenly, we'll be allowed to contribute again. Or, just do what most of us do, be a damn adult and realize that the demands of a relatively few highly vocal idiots would lead to the destruction of society, ignore them, and carry on as always. Let them learn that they have to be willing to contribute something worthwhile in order for their contribution to be accepted; most of the minority population has realized this already and they contribute what they can, it is only the vocal few who have nothing more to contribute than their loud mouths who aren't contributing in any useful or meaningful way.
You know, I just realized that might be a bit more text than you might be able to process. Let me slim it down for you a bit: choice is only a problem if you're not intelligent enough to handle it.
You explain that electrons through a circuit move at the same speed as light through a window, which, while technically correct, is a fallacy as, as I explained (and you ignored), the circuit is a much longer path and the delay is measurable. You pick the points I am making, rather than the facts that back them up, to attack; you do this because you have no facts of your own to argue with and the audience here is generally smart enough to see that.
Also, you can compromise an automatic door with $20 worth of electronics, no smartphone needed. And how do you propose the system you describe would signal the vehicle? Hackable, recordable, replayable, jammable radio waves? Lights are a fair bitbetter suited for this type of signaling, as they not only provide signal data, but also easily verifiable sourxe data. Where is that radio wave coming from? You can approximate the direction and guess, but you can actually see where the light is. The same applies to cars.
If the discussion is about whether or not we'll need traffic lights in the future, the fact that people need them is extremely relevant. Since I can't seen to illustrate that well enough for you with people inside, let's consider the ones outside, who will still be riding bikes, running, jogging, and walking. All of this will occur adjacent to, on, or across roadways and any of it could result in abrupt speed deltas (think cyclist hits small rock, or swerves suddenly around it, ending up in the path of a vehicle, or pedestrian trips and falls into street). And pedestrians needing to cross? Lights.
As for motion sickness, that actually has damn near nothing to do with delta and basically everything to do with cues not matching up. No matter how fast the vehicle can throw up its own cues, there will always be some delay (as the signals travel through a mile or more of wire, trace, and computational pathway, and as the data moves from sensor to RAM to CPU to signaling device, and as the vehicle's on-board computer analyzes and processes to determine if a specific cue is important) and any delay is enough to cause issues for a large number of people. A window solves that and a light helps. So yes, it is important to the matter at hand, making the people in the vehicle relevant to the discussion.
Sure, the computer can process and react more quickly than a human, even a well-trained human, but there is still (and, the laws of physics dictate, always will be) considerable delay.
About half of ny examples relate to windows on the vehicle, moreso than lights on the roadway, and there is a good reason for that. The next logical step from "the cars don't need lights" is "people in the cars don't need to see where they're going". These are both false statements, however, as cars will still need lights to control how they affect the flow of traffic they cannot communicate with (pedestrians, for whom a light will still be necessary, even if the car can be signalled by radio, though I'll also illustrate why that is a horrible idea) and people still need windows to avoid motion sickness and be able to brace when a sensor fails (or a pedestrian with a smartphone ans $20 worth of electronics sends a BRAKE HARD signal) and the vehicle fucks up.