Right. With credit cards, you're basically getting free insurance paid for by people who keep loads of interest-bearing debt.
Don't be silly. That money stays with the financial institutions involved. Any money that needs to be refunded due to fraud comes from the merchants who accepted the card (with a hefty fee attached too).
It's not a fallacy, you didn't understand. People are saying that limited computation facilities will encourage innovation. If limited computation facilities encourage, nay, force innovation, then limiting it even more should force even more innovation.
Why should it? That seems like an obvious fallacy. Limiting us to abacuses would just mean people would be looking to improve on the abacus. Limitations in silicon means people looking at alternatives to silicon (just as limitations with vacuum tubes meant people looked for better alternatives and the transistor).
Perhaps in 60 years the basic components of today's technology will look as quaint and old timey as vacuum tubes do today. If we are just using iteratively improved versions of todays integrated circuits then that might be somewhat disappointing.....
That's basically how you sound.
How I sound? You really should work on your reading comprehension, I was merely explaining what the article was saying.
Centralizing control over analysis of student performance data --- taking the capability away from teachers to evaluate how a program is really working, and placing it in the hands of
You seem to view this as a zero sum game.
Additional central analytics doesn't necessarily take capabilities away from teachers. It could inform and help them.
Anything can be used badly, it seems to me the fight should be to use analytics well, not stop it being used.
For improving quality of the educational materials, all Code.org needs is aggregate summary data
I don't think that's necessarily true, or at least it's not true that more specific detail than aggregate data won't lend itself to additional useful insights.
For instance it's reasonable to imagine that different people learn better in different ways and that by accumulating data on individuals one might be able to determine different groups among them which might in turn lead to more tailored materials for different types of learners.
If you aggregate the data early around one factor (eg a class or school) that will vastly reduce your ability to come up with other ways to view the data or to have things emerge from the data that you didn't already anticipate.
It would be absurd to suggest that more fine-grained data wouldn't allow for more detailed analysis. The only question is where the line needs to be drawn for privacy or other reasons.
You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).
Or a kangaroo to ride, of course.
"I want a Sony plasma television for the house," said Amanda Lisboa, 34, a business administrator who waited seven hours outside a Caracas store
... "It's going to be so cheap!"
Didn't Sony stop making plasma TVs some time ago?
If the system is designed right, forged cards, replay attacks (e.g. add $50 to the card, read its contents, spend the $50, write the old contents to get a free top-up) and other such things can be prevented.
What is the practical gain from that?
The reality is that 99.9% of people are honest and will pay what they should regardless of whether the cards are insecure and could be 'hacked'.
As such there isn't much to be gained from designing a system that protects against things almost no one is going to do anyway.
Which doesn't explain why these systems always seem to cost so much and get delivered late. I can only assume the companies that make these things do that so the problem seems harder than it is.
What kind of idiot budgets for a server room with a steel door that takes weeks to break down
That room sounds pretty secure, the perfect place to put the spare keys for safekeeping.
Usually the way this works with a company that spends the time to do it right is that the Payment Gateway/Processor will store the card in perpetuity and give you a token you can reauth against. Since the token itself is useless and can be revoked, it's vastly safer, barring any issues with the Gateway/Processor/Token (Heartland....)
It also means you are somewhat locked in to using that gateway.
If you are doing a lot of volume you will also probably want to use multiple gateways and process through whoever can give you the best rate at any point in time.
Day one server issues for a AAA release??? STOP THE PRESSES!
I think it is newsworthy. While it is inevitable from a technical perspective it seems strange to me that companies (whether Apple or Rockstar) aren't more creative at managing the demand side so that people don't have a bad experience.
How about:
1) Conservatively work out how many people you expect you can serve.
2) Auction off that many "Early Access" entry tokens with the proceeds going to charity.
3) Continue to sell more tokens (again with proceeds going to charity) for the rest of the week as you find you have spare capacity and work out any bottlenecks.
4) Let everyone in.
Everyone wins. Company gets good press rather than bad, people super keen to access the content get a good experience and a charity gets some resources.
Guess that will be next year's model
Next up is the 1000 blade shaver, perfectly moulded to your face. One quick stroke and your whole face is clean shaven.
Either that or you are bleeding to death.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.
