Basically explains why buying a car in general sucks (consistently ranked as one of the worst consumer experiences), and why there isn't a "new car supermaket" where you can browse & buy cars from multiple manufacturers.
We have multi-manufacturer dealers here in Australia (supermarkets only stock selected brands as well) and it doesn't help. It's still insulting to shonky, dishonest, arrogant, lying pieces of crap to put them in the same category as car salesmen.
What I want is a website that I can go online, look at al the offers available and pick the best one. Carsales.com.au used to do this but then manufacturers kicked up a huge stink because it was making prices drop and they replaced it with "getprice" which just farms you out to random dealers.
The B-52 completed fifty years of continuous service... it is expected to serve into the 2040s.
At least they must be doing something right.
It's because there's no need for a new heavy bomber airframe, there realistically hasn't been since the 50's because heavy bombers don't really have a role since the invention of surface to air missiles. They've gone the way of the battleship which is why most air forces have retired them. The US military is notoriously slow to change.
If your Suppression of Enemy Air Defences works you open up the skies for untold numbers of heavy bombers. Better sending a couple of those than a fleet of F-35/22/15 or whatever.
Again, you're thinking in the past. The age of total war is over and against an enemy that can actually refresh it's air defences (I.E. not Iraq or Afghanistan) you're be continually losing heavy bombers despite effective SEAD operations. Even Iran can field a fighter capable of taking a B52 out from a long range, imagine what China or India could field.
You pretty much have to destroy the entire countries military infrastructure before it becomes safe enough to fly B52s without heavy losses, as was the case in Iraq (where F22's took out AAA infrastructure first). After this, what is the point of carpet bombing. We've known since Vietnam that it's completely ineffective against a well camouflaged ground force. Again proven in Iraq and Afghanistan where they did nothing to stem the tide of militants.
Right now, we can build 12 predator drones which can perform the same job and are less vulnerable to enemy fire nor risk the lives of air crew (Unit cost: Predator = 4.3 million; B52 = 53 million). If there were really a need for heavy bombers, someone somewhere would be building a new airframe, but there isn't.
It's just like the battleship, the aircraft carrier made them obsolete but it didn't stop the US using them until 1991.
And this is exactly why the B52 is ineffective, it's not a platform for stand-off weapons and is very vulnerable to long range anti-air weapons. The B52 was designed to fly over the Soviet union and drop nuclear bombs, not to loiter in a combat area (where it's a big, expensive and tempting target).
Not really -- the B52 did duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, while most newer planes couldn't because they were too fragile vs. sand or had too short a range. The Iraq war is the reason why the A-10 was not retired, for the same reasons.
The B52 is a case of "it's not broken, so do not fix it". Wish they had used the same logic with Saturn Vs, really.
The case of Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates that heavy bombers are only good against opponents who cant fight back, unlike the A10 which still fulfilled a role (IIRC the A10 was taken out of retirement because there were no other anti-tank aircraft that were effective). The B52 was not used in Bosnia because the Serbians had a bunch of soviet era SA7's that could take down a B52 without breaking a sweat. The advanced aircraft you claim were too fragile had to be used before the B52s could go in because the Iraqi's had some SA7s and Migs that could shoot down B52s. Against an opponent who could refresh their military inventory, they'd be utterly useless.
The B52 isn't a case of "its not broken", the B52 is already ineffective. Its the same as the US continuing to operate a battleship until 1991, 45 years after they were demonstrated to be ineffective. Because the US military is resistant to change until it's forced upon them.
If you bill for time and materials, the headaches turn in to more cash.
Not really, you spend all your time working on a project that's doomed to failure because the client wont listen. When it does fall through you cop the blame and the idiot client tells everyone at the golf club how useless you are. This is what I mean by "in the long term", what you're proposing is short term gain with no consideration of long term effects.
If you don't understand how important reputation is as a consultant, you've never been a consultant.
Terrible advice. There is always money in confusion as long as you write the contract properly, which should always be the case.
Because contract have never been torn up in court.
I used to know a consultant like this. Would write incredibly one sided contracts, still 100% legal but very one sided, which only idiots would sign. It worked for a while but when one project fell through this idiot client hired a non-idiot lawyer and he lost more than he earned in his career. House, investments, car, even furniture. The guy went from driving a Porsche 911 (not cheap in Oz) to a old Huyandai Getz in a matter of days and hand to declare bankruptcy just to keep the Getz.
Writing unfair contracts is an easy way to get sued. Even fair contracts can land you in a lot of shit.
Education in the United states is a complete and utter joke. As an adult that went through that system and had to have my father scream at teachers and administrators to do their frigging job,
This isn't the fault of the educators, their hands are tied.
You see when a teacher tries to do something radical, like teach or engage the students in some critical thinking they get 30 parents (thanks to massive class sizes) barrelling down the halls yelling and screaming that they're introducing their children to all manner of horrible/ungodly/liberal ideas and unlike you or your dad, have an ambulance chaser on a leash.
For everyone 1 person who wants the teachers to be allowed to teach, there's a few dozen that don't because they believe education is a bad thing(TM) for a variety of stupid reasons.
Administrators are so scared of a lawsuit, teachers who try anything are punished.
If its your last day on the job. Just say, "You're an idiot and so is that moron you hired."
Just remember though, burning bridges isn't always a good thing.
And the last day should be the first day you find out that the client takes the advice of an idiot (so many consultant jokes... must resist).
Seriously, if a client wont listen then dump the client. They'll cost more money than they bring in over the long run, they'll definitely cost way too much in headaches.
I can't be the only one who thinks that the headlights on certain luxury cars are already annoyingly bright to other drivers. Now we get to be blinded by lasers, great...
Oh and beta sucks.
This, aren't headlights bright enough, what they need to do is to illuminate more of the road and surrounds (as in the side of the road where people jump out in front of cars from).
Instead now I'm going to have a BMW prick playing with his lasers as he pootles down the highway either doing 20 more or 20 less than the traffic.
That thing would have MSDOS because that's what the person writing the code was used to and for no other reason.
You're a developer aren't you.
Because if you've actually worked with these systems you'd know that OS does matter, there have been fabrication programs written in almost every OS but we keep going back to DOS because it works better with mm precision and timing.
In deltas infotainment head rest. Saw it netbooting when it powered up
Not uncommon, Singapore Airlines uses Gentoo. When you think about it, it makes sense as an airline IFE system would need a robust multicast system.
Up until a few years ago I would have said a phone. Linux is so common on embedded systems these days that its hard to find an odd place for it. I guess an advertising platform, I once saw a 7x1 metre advertising screen reboot with the CentOS logo.
The strangest OS in a place I didn't expect I've seen in recent years is DOS on an new industrial lathe. Apparently DOS is the best application for the sub mm precision that they needed.
Because, after all, if you're in a plane (even if it's hijacked), you shouldn't be allowed to call 911 or your loved ones on your cell phone.
Every time I think Congress couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
Erm exceptions that prove the rule.
In a hijack scenario, no-one gives a crap if you've used your phone. However if you're not being hijacked everyone cares about not hearing your inane yammering to your equally vapid friends.
It may not occur to you, but laws are not rock solid things that can never be broken, ever. Laws are actually quite flexible things, even when something is expressly verboten under ordinary circumstances can be broken with little to no consequence under extraordinary circumstances. To elaborate (in Australia) you can hit and run (with a car) if you can demonstrate your life was in danger and you had no other avenue of escape, you'll still go to court but you'll leave a free person. This is why we have courts, judges and lawyers instead of having summary punishments with no appeals. In fact if the lawyers didn't fill this very valuable role in our societies we would have burned them at the stake long ago.
Up until about 5 years ago, it was common to see phones on certain long haul planes in the backs of seats. Hell, a subplot of Die Hard 2 revolves around the fact that this existed. Why is this a problem now and not then?
Cost. The phone in the back of the seat cost about a dollar a minute (or more) to use. Great for making a quick call to someone to say your flight changed, was late, is early, whatever. Not good for chatting inanely. Self-limits people wanting to just yak continuously.
Cheers,
Dave
And they've largely disappeared. Most budget airlines dont have them (and budget airlines depend on selling"value add" services to survive) and a brand new QANTAS A380 didn't have them either (neither did the older 737-800 come to think of it).
No shit. Why can't the airlines just develop no phone talking policies. Do we really need to make this a law?
Because people will ignore airline policies, in fact you'll have enough people ignoring the law. Practically no-one follows instructions given to them by flight attendants, thats why they have to go through the cabin and put tray tables and seat backs in the right position. People refuse to follow simple, straightforward and sensible instructions simply because they don't want to.
You know what is a real problem on planes? SCREAMING BABIES. Solution: ban babies from all public transportation. 'nuff said.
Some airlines tried putting in a kid free section (MAS if you need an example). Parents screamed bloody murder over it.
The irony is, the good seats were reserved for the kid zone (at the front, so less engine noise and they'd disembark first), but this wasn't good enough for the parents and they had to raise hell over it.
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices.:)
Actually a lot of planes now days dont have them. Especially budget airlines (and if it were really profitable, budget airlines would have two per seat), even a brand new QF A380 didn't have them. The thing is, on the planes that do have them I've never seen a single person use them.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices.:)
Actually they're fixed to the airframe, so their part of the aircraft's systems and not mobile.
Also they're tested to make sure they work properly. The problem with your phone is that it's never been tested to CASA/FAA standards, therefore could easily be malfunctioning.
What if there were an app for that, to arrange easy swaps? It sounds like a daily commuter could save hundreds of dollars a year.
And yes, screw the beta.
Most places now use RFID cards in lieu of physical tickets. In my city (Perth, Western Australia) a paper ticket is 15-25% more expensive than using the SmartShafter, erm, I mean SmartRider RFID card. So doing swaps is not really practical for most public transport commuters nor will it save them much.
The paper tickets are both distance and time limited as well.
Perth is not the only city that has switched to RFID cards either (MyKi, Oyster, just to name a few). Singapore sells RFID cards for temporary tickets at vending machines in train stations. You pay SG$1 for the card (before the fare) which you get back when you deposit the card in the machine at your destination. Even some places that still use paper tickets, like Bangkok's train system imprint the card with a barcode containing the station of origin and the selected destination.
You use a credit card at a cash machine and you are charged a cash advance interest rate immediately.
Not necessarily. It's a hack, but when I was in Japan I found the best way to get cash was to make an advance payment on my Discover card -- thus giving me a negative balance, -- and then take out a cash advance. No fees or interest and a good exchange rate.
I think you mean a positive (black) balance as opposed to a negative (red) balance.
And this is a feature rather than a hack. Banks (at least in Australia) are not permitted to charge you a fee to access your own money on a CC, the banks money yes but not your own.
You use a credit card at a cash machine and you are charged a cash advance interest rate immediately.
Most countries use Chip and PIN for both credit and debit cards.
Seeing as:
1. My debit card is still a Visa card, just with no line of credit so it can still be used for online purchases
2. My credit card can withdraw cash from an ATM without paying cash advance fees if the balance is positive (I.E. banks don't charge me for withdrawing my own money)
There's not really much difference between them any more from a functional standpoint.
While I'll accept your counter, it should also be noted that most EU countries are much smaller than the US, which does make it a bit easier to change that infrastructure. If the entire EU all had to switch at exactly the same time, that would be more akin to the US because every state has laws that are just a little bit different. That said, it's still no excuse for us taking this much longer to switch.
The entire EU had it.
If you've ever seen the squabbling in the EU parliament, you'd know they make the US House and Senate look like a model of efficiency.
The US is just conservative (as in resistant to change) at heart and doesn't change until it absolutely has to. Europeans just like to gloat whilst sipping their latte's and watching Germany slowly take over continental Europe (erm.. again)
Actually, modern cards not only have the contact chip but also a "Contactless" mode that can be used for small payments.
So you can pay for your Starbucks or bus fare instantly just by tapping your Visa card, no need to swipe or insert the card and enter a PIN number. This is all still more secure than Swipe & Sign, because the cards can't be easily cloned and theres a relatively low transaction limit.
Wrong.
Contactless is far less secure than magstripe.
"Contactless" is far less secure because it will wirelessly give out all the information on the front of the card (CC number, name, expiry date) to any system that asks for it. I have an application for it on my Galaxy Nexus (and the source code that doesn't censor the CC number is available on GitHub). Now you have the number, exp date and name on the card you can make online transactions with it and the best way to avoid detection by the bank is to make small transactions because they are less likely to be flagged or noticed by the user and the bank will write it off rather than doing any kind of indepth investigation (so as long as it's not directed to a real address, you're safe).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. If I say so, then it must be true!
B-B-B-But all the astrologers told me this radiomation is dangerous to mi Qi. That and I may face challenges today.
Who is this "study" to cast doubt on that.
Basically explains why buying a car in general sucks (consistently ranked as one of the worst consumer experiences), and why there isn't a "new car supermaket" where you can browse & buy cars from multiple manufacturers.
We have multi-manufacturer dealers here in Australia (supermarkets only stock selected brands as well) and it doesn't help. It's still insulting to shonky, dishonest, arrogant, lying pieces of crap to put them in the same category as car salesmen.
What I want is a website that I can go online, look at al the offers available and pick the best one. Carsales.com.au used to do this but then manufacturers kicked up a huge stink because it was making prices drop and they replaced it with "getprice" which just farms you out to random dealers.
Doesn't take a large conspiracy. Just one pissed off agent who disliked her.
The conspiracy comes after, trying to cover your ass.
Doesn't even take anything personal.
Just one jilted agent who doesn't like towel heads.
But I'm going to subscribe the initial mistake to Hanlons razor. The subsequent cover ups however were entirely based in malice.
Go easy on him Sexconker,
He's using Apple's new calculator. Made to the same great quality as Apple Maps, so it's little wonder he got 117%.
You must find the Jade Rabbit before the next full moon.
The B-52 completed fifty years of continuous service ... it is expected to serve into the 2040s.
At least they must be doing something right.
It's because there's no need for a new heavy bomber airframe, there realistically hasn't been since the 50's because heavy bombers don't really have a role since the invention of surface to air missiles. They've gone the way of the battleship which is why most air forces have retired them. The US military is notoriously slow to change.
If your Suppression of Enemy Air Defences works you open up the skies for untold numbers of heavy bombers. Better sending a couple of those than a fleet of F-35/22/15 or whatever.
Again, you're thinking in the past. The age of total war is over and against an enemy that can actually refresh it's air defences (I.E. not Iraq or Afghanistan) you're be continually losing heavy bombers despite effective SEAD operations. Even Iran can field a fighter capable of taking a B52 out from a long range, imagine what China or India could field.
You pretty much have to destroy the entire countries military infrastructure before it becomes safe enough to fly B52s without heavy losses, as was the case in Iraq (where F22's took out AAA infrastructure first). After this, what is the point of carpet bombing. We've known since Vietnam that it's completely ineffective against a well camouflaged ground force. Again proven in Iraq and Afghanistan where they did nothing to stem the tide of militants.
Right now, we can build 12 predator drones which can perform the same job and are less vulnerable to enemy fire nor risk the lives of air crew (Unit cost: Predator = 4.3 million; B52 = 53 million). If there were really a need for heavy bombers, someone somewhere would be building a new airframe, but there isn't.
It's just like the battleship, the aircraft carrier made them obsolete but it didn't stop the US using them until 1991.
I take it you haven't heard the term "standoff". Welcome to the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
And this is exactly why the B52 is ineffective, it's not a platform for stand-off weapons and is very vulnerable to long range anti-air weapons. The B52 was designed to fly over the Soviet union and drop nuclear bombs, not to loiter in a combat area (where it's a big, expensive and tempting target).
Not really -- the B52 did duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, while most newer planes couldn't because they were too fragile vs. sand or had too short a range. The Iraq war is the reason why the A-10 was not retired, for the same reasons. The B52 is a case of "it's not broken, so do not fix it". Wish they had used the same logic with Saturn Vs, really.
The case of Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates that heavy bombers are only good against opponents who cant fight back, unlike the A10 which still fulfilled a role (IIRC the A10 was taken out of retirement because there were no other anti-tank aircraft that were effective). The B52 was not used in Bosnia because the Serbians had a bunch of soviet era SA7's that could take down a B52 without breaking a sweat. The advanced aircraft you claim were too fragile had to be used before the B52s could go in because the Iraqi's had some SA7s and Migs that could shoot down B52s. Against an opponent who could refresh their military inventory, they'd be utterly useless.
The B52 isn't a case of "its not broken", the B52 is already ineffective. Its the same as the US continuing to operate a battleship until 1991, 45 years after they were demonstrated to be ineffective. Because the US military is resistant to change until it's forced upon them.
If you bill for time and materials, the headaches turn in to more cash.
Not really, you spend all your time working on a project that's doomed to failure because the client wont listen. When it does fall through you cop the blame and the idiot client tells everyone at the golf club how useless you are. This is what I mean by "in the long term", what you're proposing is short term gain with no consideration of long term effects.
If you don't understand how important reputation is as a consultant, you've never been a consultant.
Terrible advice. There is always money in confusion as long as you write the contract properly, which should always be the case.
Because contract have never been torn up in court.
I used to know a consultant like this. Would write incredibly one sided contracts, still 100% legal but very one sided, which only idiots would sign. It worked for a while but when one project fell through this idiot client hired a non-idiot lawyer and he lost more than he earned in his career. House, investments, car, even furniture. The guy went from driving a Porsche 911 (not cheap in Oz) to a old Huyandai Getz in a matter of days and hand to declare bankruptcy just to keep the Getz.
Writing unfair contracts is an easy way to get sued. Even fair contracts can land you in a lot of shit.
This isn't the fault of the educators, their hands are tied.
You see when a teacher tries to do something radical, like teach or engage the students in some critical thinking they get 30 parents (thanks to massive class sizes) barrelling down the halls yelling and screaming that they're introducing their children to all manner of horrible/ungodly/liberal ideas and unlike you or your dad, have an ambulance chaser on a leash.
For everyone 1 person who wants the teachers to be allowed to teach, there's a few dozen that don't because they believe education is a bad thing(TM) for a variety of stupid reasons.
Administrators are so scared of a lawsuit, teachers who try anything are punished.
If its your last day on the job. Just say, "You're an idiot and so is that moron you hired."
Just remember though, burning bridges isn't always a good thing.
And the last day should be the first day you find out that the client takes the advice of an idiot (so many consultant jokes... must resist).
Seriously, if a client wont listen then dump the client. They'll cost more money than they bring in over the long run, they'll definitely cost way too much in headaches.
I can't be the only one who thinks that the headlights on certain luxury cars are already annoyingly bright to other drivers. Now we get to be blinded by lasers, great...
Oh and beta sucks.
This, aren't headlights bright enough, what they need to do is to illuminate more of the road and surrounds (as in the side of the road where people jump out in front of cars from).
Instead now I'm going to have a BMW prick playing with his lasers as he pootles down the highway either doing 20 more or 20 less than the traffic.
That thing would have MSDOS because that's what the person writing the code was used to and for no other reason.
You're a developer aren't you.
Because if you've actually worked with these systems you'd know that OS does matter, there have been fabrication programs written in almost every OS but we keep going back to DOS because it works better with mm precision and timing.
In deltas infotainment head rest. Saw it netbooting when it powered up
Not uncommon, Singapore Airlines uses Gentoo. When you think about it, it makes sense as an airline IFE system would need a robust multicast system.
Up until a few years ago I would have said a phone. Linux is so common on embedded systems these days that its hard to find an odd place for it. I guess an advertising platform, I once saw a 7x1 metre advertising screen reboot with the CentOS logo.
The strangest OS in a place I didn't expect I've seen in recent years is DOS on an new industrial lathe. Apparently DOS is the best application for the sub mm precision that they needed.
Because, after all, if you're in a plane (even if it's hijacked), you shouldn't be allowed to call 911 or your loved ones on your cell phone.
Every time I think Congress couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
Erm exceptions that prove the rule.
In a hijack scenario, no-one gives a crap if you've used your phone. However if you're not being hijacked everyone cares about not hearing your inane yammering to your equally vapid friends.
It may not occur to you, but laws are not rock solid things that can never be broken, ever. Laws are actually quite flexible things, even when something is expressly verboten under ordinary circumstances can be broken with little to no consequence under extraordinary circumstances. To elaborate (in Australia) you can hit and run (with a car) if you can demonstrate your life was in danger and you had no other avenue of escape, you'll still go to court but you'll leave a free person. This is why we have courts, judges and lawyers instead of having summary punishments with no appeals. In fact if the lawyers didn't fill this very valuable role in our societies we would have burned them at the stake long ago.
Up until about 5 years ago, it was common to see phones on certain long haul planes in the backs of seats. Hell, a subplot of Die Hard 2 revolves around the fact that this existed. Why is this a problem now and not then?
Cost. The phone in the back of the seat cost about a dollar a minute (or more) to use. Great for making a quick call to someone to say your flight changed, was late, is early, whatever. Not good for chatting inanely. Self-limits people wanting to just yak continuously.
Cheers,
Dave
And they've largely disappeared. Most budget airlines dont have them (and budget airlines depend on selling"value add" services to survive) and a brand new QANTAS A380 didn't have them either (neither did the older 737-800 come to think of it).
No shit. Why can't the airlines just develop no phone talking policies. Do we really need to make this a law?
Because people will ignore airline policies, in fact you'll have enough people ignoring the law. Practically no-one follows instructions given to them by flight attendants, thats why they have to go through the cabin and put tray tables and seat backs in the right position. People refuse to follow simple, straightforward and sensible instructions simply because they don't want to.
People are just jerks really.
You know what is a real problem on planes? SCREAMING BABIES. Solution: ban babies from all public transportation. 'nuff said.
Some airlines tried putting in a kid free section (MAS if you need an example). Parents screamed bloody murder over it.
The irony is, the good seats were reserved for the kid zone (at the front, so less engine noise and they'd disembark first), but this wasn't good enough for the parents and they had to raise hell over it.
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)
Actually a lot of planes now days dont have them. Especially budget airlines (and if it were really profitable, budget airlines would have two per seat), even a brand new QF A380 didn't have them. The thing is, on the planes that do have them I've never seen a single person use them.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)
Actually they're fixed to the airframe, so their part of the aircraft's systems and not mobile.
Also they're tested to make sure they work properly. The problem with your phone is that it's never been tested to CASA/FAA standards, therefore could easily be malfunctioning.
What if there were an app for that, to arrange easy swaps? It sounds like a daily commuter could save hundreds of dollars a year.
And yes, screw the beta.
Most places now use RFID cards in lieu of physical tickets. In my city (Perth, Western Australia) a paper ticket is 15-25% more expensive than using the SmartShafter, erm, I mean SmartRider RFID card. So doing swaps is not really practical for most public transport commuters nor will it save them much.
The paper tickets are both distance and time limited as well.
Perth is not the only city that has switched to RFID cards either (MyKi, Oyster, just to name a few). Singapore sells RFID cards for temporary tickets at vending machines in train stations. You pay SG$1 for the card (before the fare) which you get back when you deposit the card in the machine at your destination. Even some places that still use paper tickets, like Bangkok's train system imprint the card with a barcode containing the station of origin and the selected destination.
Not necessarily. It's a hack, but when I was in Japan I found the best way to get cash was to make an advance payment on my Discover card -- thus giving me a negative balance, -- and then take out a cash advance. No fees or interest and a good exchange rate.
I think you mean a positive (black) balance as opposed to a negative (red) balance.
And this is a feature rather than a hack. Banks (at least in Australia) are not permitted to charge you a fee to access your own money on a CC, the banks money yes but not your own.
The topic is credit cards.
You use a credit card at a cash machine and you are charged a cash advance interest rate immediately.
Most countries use Chip and PIN for both credit and debit cards.
Seeing as:
1. My debit card is still a Visa card, just with no line of credit so it can still be used for online purchases
2. My credit card can withdraw cash from an ATM without paying cash advance fees if the balance is positive (I.E. banks don't charge me for withdrawing my own money)
There's not really much difference between them any more from a functional standpoint.
While I'll accept your counter, it should also be noted that most EU countries are much smaller than the US, which does make it a bit easier to change that infrastructure. If the entire EU all had to switch at exactly the same time, that would be more akin to the US because every state has laws that are just a little bit different. That said, it's still no excuse for us taking this much longer to switch.
The entire EU had it.
If you've ever seen the squabbling in the EU parliament, you'd know they make the US House and Senate look like a model of efficiency.
The US is just conservative (as in resistant to change) at heart and doesn't change until it absolutely has to. Europeans just like to gloat whilst sipping their latte's and watching Germany slowly take over continental Europe (erm.. again)
Actually, modern cards not only have the contact chip but also a "Contactless" mode that can be used for small payments.
So you can pay for your Starbucks or bus fare instantly just by tapping your Visa card, no need to swipe or insert the card and enter a PIN number. This is all still more secure than Swipe & Sign, because the cards can't be easily cloned and theres a relatively low transaction limit.
Wrong.
Contactless is far less secure than magstripe.
"Contactless" is far less secure because it will wirelessly give out all the information on the front of the card (CC number, name, expiry date) to any system that asks for it. I have an application for it on my Galaxy Nexus (and the source code that doesn't censor the CC number is available on GitHub). Now you have the number, exp date and name on the card you can make online transactions with it and the best way to avoid detection by the bank is to make small transactions because they are less likely to be flagged or noticed by the user and the bank will write it off rather than doing any kind of indepth investigation (so as long as it's not directed to a real address, you're safe).
So you don't need to replicate the card to use it for fraudulent purposes. But if you would like to, just follow the specifications that are publicly available from Visa's website (same for MasterCard, haven't checked Amex/Discover, but no-one uses those cards outside the US).
Fortunately chip and pin technology is not dependent on contactless technology (actually it's the other way around).