Every now and then, even the Daily Fail gets something right.

Because most ordinary news goes to 10, our news goes to 11.

As for why I don't care where I stick my card. It is because I am protected.

And here in lies the problem with many Australians.

You dont seem to get that even though you dont pay directly, you still pay for credit card fraud. Its socialised somewhat across all the banks customers so the people who are responsible end up paying for those who aren't, like yourself. Fraud costs Australia 1.4 Billion annually, this money doesn't come from nowhere.

Because of this, I think that people should be afforded less protection than they currently are as people are being too irresponsible.

If I was responsible for insuring the security of every step of the money transfer chain I would go back to using cash.

Many of us still use cash for our day to day transactions. Not only is it safer, faster and more convenient, we save a small fortune. The cash discount is alive and well in Australia because credit is very expensive for the merchant.

It's a one-time pad-based system and the merchant never gets the real account number or even the user's name. They get a one-time code for a specific purchase amount at a specific time.

Because maybe I know that MITM attacks aren't the only way things become compromised.

Software flaws are becoming increasingly attractive attack vectors for criminals.

Also perhaps its also because Apple has a terrible track record for taking responsibility for stuff ups and blaming the user when it all goes horribly wrong.

My experience is that smug Apple-bashers are pretty ignorant about technology in general, thanks for reinforcing that opinion.

My experience is fanboys tend to ignore the facts and go after the person making the statement, ad hominmem is easier than rational argument. Thanks for reinforcing that.

I was referring to Apple Pay in that line

And I suspect so did the GP.

Why do you think Apple Pay is remotely secure. Apple is good at keeping its users hemmed in and docile, not security.

I suspect you're Australian.

We kept the laws that state banks are responsible for security, so in order to blame you for fraud, they need clear evidence that you either co-operated with the crooks or allowed the crooks to get access to your details through an act of gross stupidity (and by this I mean beyond Tony Abbott levels of gross stupidity).

However in the US, it's part of a push by credit issuers to shift the responsibility for security from them to merchants and users.

As a side note, I find it alarming that so many Australians are victims of credit card fraud. Its obvious why though, Australians just dont take care with their cards. they'll happliy stick it in anywhere, into any hole without a second thought. Sure you get the money back but having gone through the process for a mere $40 it's a complete pain in the arse (especially since they cancel your card immediately and you have to wait for them to send you a new one, and GE Money aren't quick about it either)

When my new Shitibank card arrived, it didn't even have a magstripe. Just some grey coloured plastic where the magstipe used to go.

Australian BTW.

All of this relies on the notion that the majority of credit card fraud is from cloned cards, not organised criminals using card numbers for online transactions in vast quantities.

I love people perpetuating myths. Have you looked at any recent data? American vehicles have also recently been showing better quality numbers than Euro cars.

I love when people dont know what they're on about.

Since when has a Honda Civic been a European car? Even the UK built FN2 Type R was designed in Japan (as bad as it was compared to previous Type R's and the FD2).

If you want something that will last 20 years on its original parts, buy Japanese. Also, most American cars aren't sold in countries that aren't the United States because most countries dont consider a performance car with a live rear axle to be any good. Even Australia has had independent rear multi-link or double wishbone suspension for well over a decade.

with my Infiniti being the exception

Well is a V35/36 Nissan Skyline that costs twice as much. Of course it's reliable.

Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is very different to Irritated Prisoner's Dilemma.

Lets not consider Lonely Prisoner's Dilemma.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment"
- Charles Darwin.

In the modern context, "fittest" is wrong as what we consider to be the fittest people are the least adaptable to changes in their environment. However back in Darwin's day, the meaning was a little different.

But put into the context of the full quote, we can easily see that "fittest" means most adaptable/innovative.

I'd argue that these organisms would need to be the most adaptable. As the environment changes, niches appear and disappear. The same as it is in business, a business that occupies a niche will never grow very big so an organism that occupies an environmental niche will always be closer to extinction due to low numbers alone than one that competes across a wide range of environments but can sustain high numbers. If an environment changes, an organism that thrives in multiple environments and

Ultimately, the key to survival is the ability to procreate. This means having sufficient resources to breed and raise young. Very few species survive by being completely selfish. Even most predators like sharks and lions work together.

I live in Australia where pot use isn't demonised and getting caught with pot attracts a fine at worst.

I've never met a stoner who smokes in their car and I've met a lot of stoners. Most wont even drive after getting stoned. Also, the smell of pot doesn't linger as long as the smell of cigarette smoke and it doesn't deaden your sense of smell in the same way.

As someone who's actually used pot (it's not a mortal sin in my country and you wont go to jail for having some on your person) you dont feel less competent, you just require far less stimuli to get the same effect. So doing 30 KPH stoned is gives you the same buzz as doing 90KPH drunk (in a 60 KPH zone).

What you dont get from pot is the false confidence you get from drinking. So you'll be less likely to think you're capable of picking up the keys and going for a drive, it takes a lot of booze and a lot of self awareness/introspection to realise that your impaired from alcohol, in my experience I have to consciously tell myself that I feel capable, but I'm not until I've passed the half way point on a bottle of vodka. After a single bong, my body is telling me I'm too tired to drive and should just make some nachos at home.

Yes, but you cant appreciate the true sound of their name until you've read it in the original Klingon.

I read the article, I know thats a cardinal sin here on /. but still.

Looks like they're not changing anything about the small claims dispute process, they're just allowing it to occur over the interwebs. This means you still submit the same evidence and arguments to the same kind of judge who weighs the evidence and arguments. At worse you may have to have a telephone conversation or conference, but that's it. This is a good thing as it will save you from having to take a day off work to go to court, save expensive court rooms for more important cases and that the judge can now do his job in his undies.

This also means the judge doesn't have to put up with rambling amateur legal arguments from people who pronounce "specifically" as "pacificly".

The article made it quite clear that telephone will be an option as web conferencing isn't always reliable.