Let's hope that Harvard teaches their engineers more restraint, balance, common-sense, concern for the common good, and other things that are positive for society and the world than they teach their MBAs.
I'm not positive about the technical aspects of the chip, but just thinking about it, I don't believe that chip cards protect you from certain fraudulent transactions, like online purchases. I'm giving the website my card number, expiration date, card verification number, name, and billing address.
Someone who gains access to all that information stored by the retailer would certainly have all they need to initiate another online transaction elsewhere. The only way the bank has of preventing that would be to issue a new card number.
If they want to keep making money and not get trounced by the competition, they will eventually stop their bluff/tantrum and come back to play ball. Remember that their only current, likely avenues for growth are broadband and mobile, and mobile is probably very slow, if not at a stand-still. They can only pull this off if they no longer want to grow at a significant rate.
You can say that their competitors could do the same thing if they become Title II, but someone will choose to take the growth even under the regulation while the competition stands still.
Your guess for the cost to produce a regular credit/debit card is exactly right, but chip cards apparently cost a lot more. Bank of America sent me a new "chip-and-signature" card (yuck, why not chip-and-pin, so frustrating) after the Home Depot breach. According to this article:
"The cost to produce and distribute a card to a customer is under $2. The cost to make and distribute a chip card to a customer is between $15 and $20," says Coleman.
The last link on TFS says that just community banks and credit unions are already on the hook for $160 million. That's not even counting the banking giants. We're talking LOTS of money lost and wasted by a lot of people because of Target, Home Depot, et al being lax with their security.
Do note that this new requirement will only affect non-degree programs at public and non-profit schools, as well as all programs at for-profit schools. I don't think that's a bad idea. It prevents "Joe Bob's school of Hi-Tek" from offering a "certificate" that is completely worthless for $50k, while it doesn't touch any legitimate liberal arts degrees.
They opposed it because they oppose everything that Obama does.
Whatever he does, they support the opposite. No one cared about Common Core originally, and it was implemented in 43 states. But as soon as Obama said it was a good idea, everyone on the started freaking out and saying it was the worst EVAH.
When he suggested bombing Syria they said no way.
When he was reluctant to bomb Russia/Ukraine they said we needed to.
If he said cyanide was toxic they would stand on the Capitol Steps and chug it just to spite him.
If he cured cancer they'd complain he was putting doctors out of work.
Yes, and here's a video reference of exactly this happening: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...
Don't forget the clogging and drying up if you don't use the printer for a while, requiring buying new ink cartridges, or a whole new printer.
Yep, it's insane. Reagan and Nixon are considered "left-wing" nowadays, or at least their policies are.
I'll grant you that this specific article was way too simplistic, but:
All of the people who rely solely on NPR for their news are misinformed.
You're way off with that one. Source: http://www.poynter.org/latest-...
Thanks for your insightful post. It makes sense and I agree, except that I understand from first hand accounts that sometimes protests and demonstrations attract people that are there expressly to get into fights with the police, so it's not always only AFTER the melee starts that they act. Sometimes these elements actively incite the conflicts. However, that doesn't take away from your point that the police showing up in riot gear is starting with an escalation.
NPR had an article a few weeks back about exactly the kind of alternative style of policing that you describe. It's a worthy read (or listen) if you or others reading this are interested: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/...
Very insightful post, and I think it approaches at least some of the mechanisms of how this shift happened. My local NPR station finally played this story this morning, so I came back here to comment. It actually included an anecdote of a girl who started in an intro CS class in the 80s who felt (and this was reinforced by the professor) she was way behind her peers and presumably out of place because they had been programming on their PCs (specific example given was a TRS-80) for a long time already, and she had not.
So yes, this disparity in early PC ownership definitely seems to have been a factor. However, then the question becomes why did boys get PCs and not girls? The theory that the article presents is that this was influenced by the advertising of the time. Their example talked about computer ads with all guys programming and using the computer, while the one woman appears in a bikini jumping into a pool. I can see where this may have had some significant influence as well, but it probably doesn't explain everything.
The thing is we only have small tidbits of data, and it would take some serious studies to confirm why in fact women are less prone to obsessing over computers. I think a lot of the arguments on both sides, including the story (it was the ads!) and the majority of the slashdot comments (women naturally don't like computers like men do) have oversimplified everything.
It's possible that boys are naturally more attracted to computers, like I believe has been confirmed that they are more attracted to cars (supposedly even male chimps are as well). However, we won't know for sure without the studies.
Just for reference, here's an interesting bit of news from a few years ago that never seemed to get much notice, but which I think may have something to do with FIOS seemingly grinding to a halt: https://gigaom.com/2011/12/02/...
Basically, it seems to basically boil down to a secret non-compete agreement between the established wireless and wired internet providers to not invade each others markets with new competition.
I understand the reason for your earlier post better now, thanks. I can see it too. Saying that any group is better suited to something than any other group in this day and age is opening yourself up for political battles.
Yours may be the first post on Slashdot that I've seen arguing for political correctness over discussion of engineering realities getting an early +5 rating. Very interesting to see the replies to your post so far. If it had been the other way around (men more suitable than women for mars mission) and someone had complained about sexism, it would have been downmodded to oblivion and received a flood of "screw political correctness, accept the facts" replies.
As to the information related by the summary, if we extrapolate a little bit and think about colonization ideas while having to deal with similar engineering constraints, women would possibly win again. They would be able to taken frozen sperm with them to impregnate with after arrival, as opposed to having to transport couples.
Yeah, about that. Sorry, but there was no good or even half-bad reason for a ground invasion of Iraq; only fully bad to terrible reasons, involving intelligence errors and exaggerations (about chemical weapons) and outright lies (about nuclear weapons). Many many people paid the price, and are still paying the price (we all are, actually). So yes, "Bush lied people died" is still completely applicable, and his administration is still completely deserving of the hate and vitriol that it receives and will continue to receive, probably forever.