Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: Good luck with that. (Score 2) 558

Than opening wallet, removing card and swiping it, entering a pin / signing a signature, returning it to your wallet versus just touching a device to a reader and having your device authenticate via your fingerprint / continuous biometrics?

Credit cards must be different where you're from. Here retailers all have contact-less payment terminals. My credit card works through my wallet so the transaction consists purely of taking wallet out of pocket, swipe past the reader, putting wallet back in pocket. From transactions over $100 I have to type a four digit pin which takes all of 1 whole second. Interestingly, my bank has an app which already uses my NFC chip on my phone to perform the exact same transaction. But also lets me withdraw up to $200 cash from an ATM without my card. Apple and Google have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Comment Re:Boys are naturally curious... (Score 1) 608

Haven't read the comments, but NPR is American isn't it? An easy test for this theory is to compare every other country in the world that doesn't know what NPR is? I'm not American, never heard of NPR til I was an adult. We got a computer back in the early 80's, I loved it, my sister wasn't interested. Boys like tinkering and exploring, girls like socialising and drama. Nature is sexist. why is this news?

Comment Re:When you are inside the box ... (Score 1) 289

As written, it seemed as though you were defending the person I responded to. It still does, you provided some rough statement without clear direction.

Back in the 18th century, everyone believed in boogeymen, and couldn't comprehend a reality in which they didn't actually exist.

You mean like "TERRORISTS"? How about "Communists"? Nazis? Chinese? Blacks? In other words, this magic progression you hint at never happened.

Of course it did, just not in the Fox News script. Turn off your TV and see the world is a pretty good place these days.

Comment Re:When you are inside the box ... (Score 1) 289

No, I chose the US over Australia because of the socio-economic constraints in Australia.

Yet you can't think of a single example to back up your claim? I mean this is your third post on the subject which could quite easily resolved with some reputable citations, yet here we are.

Given the low levels of inequality in Australia,

So less constraints then right?

that means that you can move easily from being slightly lower middle class to slightly upper middle class (and back down)! Ain't it great! And that's just one of the many problems with your interpretation of that statistic.

Low inequality means lower socio-economic constraints. You can't have it both ways.

They teach you to read, but not to think.

derp derp

Comment Re:Is that unreasonable? (Score 1) 282

Not unreasonable at all. I reached full height 187cm (a hair under 6'2) at age 15, when I was at school I was always one of the tallest. Now only a generation later, I am constantly dwarfed by local high school kids.
And as an avid rugby player, the best team in the world 25 years ago was a full 5kg lighter and 2.5cm shorter per player than today. And this trend is consistent over the last 100 years (4 generations). This is more nutrition and training rather than evolution, but extrapolate that growth over 20 generations and you easily match the same result as the lizards.

Comment Re:When you are inside the box ... (Score 1) 289

Yes, I have experienced them first hand, under socialism, under the European welfare state, and finally coming as an immigrant to the US and working my way up.

So you agree, the US has problems. How many of those constraints have you experienced in Australia?

So tell me: what's your experience of "socio-economic constraints" based on?

The ability to read. Your claim that Australia is more socio-economically constrained than the US is plainly false as plenty of OECD reports will show. This says it's nearly twice as constrained. Your claim is bunk.

Comment Re:When you are inside the box ... (Score 1) 289

The word "God" is _in_ the Declaration of Independence, and so is the word "Creator" (Read the first 2 paragraphs).

Yeah I know. did you read my reply? That's why I said "as little as possible" instead of "zero".

As with the person I responded to, you are not even attempting to look at facts.

Yeah I did, you just didn't read them.

The words are not "religious rhetoric" when used as we see in both the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance,

Yeah I know. I'll rephrase my comment since you seem to have completely missed it the first time. Back in the 18th century, everyone believed in boogeymen, and couldn't comprehend a reality in which they didn't actually exist. The founding fathers, being visionary for their time realised that religion was mostly bunk and didn't want that claptrap polluting their work. Just like a modern President, failing to mention God will get you in trouble so they paid lip service to it to avoid controversy.
TLDR: There is no superman in that lives in the sky, all the smart people in the last 500 years know this, but have struggled with how to confront a great unwashed who simply can't accept that fact.

Theophobia is an unreasonable fear of Religion...

Yeah I knew that, my point was did you just make that word up? Do you have a word for fear of accepting reality? I do, it's called religion...

Comment Re:When you are inside the box ... (Score 0) 289

Your Theophobia is showing. The word "God" would not have bothered the founding fathers.

I disagree. The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure the constitution and Declaration of Independence contained as little religious rhetoric as possible. Sure it's in there, but for the religious climate of the time it was about as Richard Dawkins as you could get. And wtf is "Theophobia"? I knew a guy called Theo once, he was a real dick...

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Working...