Because the American consumer market exists to service the moneyed interests, of course. Duh. Did you think that it was there to provide consumers with quality, competitive services at a reasonable cost? That's cute.
Putting some damn goggles on does not require experience.
Well, if you take it to a ridiculous extreme, yeah, all that stuff would be banned. How fortunate it is that it isn't all or nothing. Give your hyperbole a rest, it's been used a lot I think.
I'm not so sure. They are both bad. They are also not comparable.
Sure they are, in the fact that they are both psychoactive substances, like coffee or nicotine. Where they're not comparable is 1) current legal status and 2) to my knowledge, nobody has asserted that ethanol has beneficial effects on the body. I know that there are studies showing red wine seems to lower the risk of fatal heart disease, but IIRC it's the antioxidants in the wine that do the good, not the alcohol.
And you'll also have to define "bad" for me. That could mean anything, it's totally subjective.
People tend to do stupid things with their body, and laws are here to reduce the various means to harm oneself.
You're not going to get anywhere with this argument if you're talking to the typical American. Once they hear something like 'protecting people from themselves' they immediately shut down and insist that anything the government does is bad if it forces them to modify their behavior (even if they would do so voluntarily, were there no law. They'll engage in the regulated behavior that they ordinarily would not do just to be spiteful). The theory is that you've got an inalienable right to be a total idiot. Where that falls down for me is the fact that frequently your choice to be a total idiot affects me negatively; for example, let's take motorcycle helmet laws. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet the chances of you being severely injured or dying in an accident are increased. Sure, it's your body, go on with your bad self, but when you get hurt you incur medical costs. If you have private insurance (like most Americans) this increases their costs, so in order to protect their profit margins, they hike my premium. Same goes for life insurance; if you threaten their profits, they'll just charge everybody more. And the crazy thing is that most bikers would wear helmets voluntarily, so the requirement doesn't affect them at all. They see it as just one more freedom taken away if it's codified into law, and that is the worst thing that could ever happen, even if they would do it anyway.
It's science, not politics !
Sorry, this is just plain wrong. In the case of marijuana, its prohibition in the USA was not intended to protect public health, but to negatively impact the Mexican population that was crossing the border. That isn't science, it's racism. In addition, the science is starting to disagree with you. There isn't a whole lot of data at this point (at least in the USA, due to pot's Schedule I status) but hopefully (and this goes back to the subject of TFA) this will change as attitudes towards marijuana change (a majority of the population now believes it should be legalized).
The dealers don't like it? It can only be a good thing. Fuck those guys.
But PCI compliance isn't actually all that difficult to do
No, so long as you have the ability/authority to make the changes that PCI requires. If you've got a back-office accounting system that can't handle tokenized credit card information, and 100% will NOT accept anything less than a full credit card number and expiration date to enter an order, it's "compensating control" time. Which is a fancy way of saying "Our business practices suck and we don't want to change them, so security suffers".
No, because they still want customers, and no patches quickly equals no customers.
Bad assumption. The people making purchasing decisions (especially at large organizations) do not base their decisions on unimportant things like "quality" or "technical factors", they very frequently make those decisions based on 1) initial cost and 2) who they play golf with. I've seen this in action, where the people who actually know things are standing on their heads trying to get management to understand why buying $x is a bad idea for valid technical reasons, and some retard MBA makes the wrong decision because a sales rep bought them dinner at a conference once.
oddly enough, the same thing happens when the government subsidizes healthcare
That has what to do with the topic at hand? Oh, right, you wingnuts don't need logic or relevance, everything's fair game to push your agenda.
If you desperately need a job or simply move office within a company and find yourself in a "culture" that is hostile to you and which requires, as in your example, an unhealthy and discriminatory work-life balance (discriminatory because clearly no single parent or person with an illness/disability that limits their ability to work long hours would ever be able to take it) then the company needs to change it.
Welcome to America, where the beatings will continue until morale improves. What you describe is "being competitive".
Employers have no incentive to treat their people like human beings. The next guy treats his employees just as badly, and if you find yourself someplace where they treat you like a human being, you're getting ripped off in terms of pay/benefits. Seriously, employers are like car salesmen here; they know they can treat you like shit because the next guy is just as bad. Oh, and medical insurance, you have none if you quit.
What? On what planet is that a good idea? That guy has paid for himself many times over, why would you punish that?
Undoing moderation to ask a question: It sounds like he brought in 178.2 million GBP of revenue after his commission, and they fired him for it. And it sounds like they may not have even paid him his commission. I can't imagine how that can be legal, especially in a country that isn't the USA. I've heard rumors that employees/contractors actually have some rights and recourse when their employer fucks them over over there.
This implies that those who make those decisions are capable of looking at it from that point of view. Fraud *might* not happen, so let's assume it won't, whereas those new terminals *definitely* will cost money RIGHT NOW, so they can't do it.
Full track data is not allowed to be stored or transmitted.
It might not be allowed, but it happens. All the time. Lazy programmers and/or retarded business systems that require all this data for no good reason other than that's how they've always done it lead to all kinds of shit being stored, including CVV data which is a HUGE no-no. I've seen this with my own eyes.
I don't see any reasons why this can't work in the USA if it works everywhere else.
Because of the expense involved in replacing the current terminals with chip and pin-compatible models. Since nothing happens in this country if nobody can make a buck, and replacing these systems improves security, but decreases the bottom line, nobody will do it.
Private schools are less expensive because they can control who attends. They can turn down students that would be more expensive to teach. (Private/charter schools do better academically for the same reason: they don't have to accept the students that will bring their test scores down.)
It's not a fair comparison, much as some people would like you to think.