Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Cashless can't happen, here is why ... (Score 1) 389

by TheRaven64 (#47447423) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills
In the UK, Barclays has offered a system called PingIt for a while that lets you send money to anyone with an email address. There's now a system called PayM that most of the banks have opted into that lets you send money to someone using their mobile phone number. The receiver just needs to register their mobile number and account. I'm not convinced by the security yet, but it's more convenient than cash for paying people.

Comment: Re:Cost of smartphone service (Score 1) 385

by drinkypoo (#47445987) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

But then you have to pay hundreds of USD for an iPhone (or maybe one hundred for a compatible Android phone) and hundreds of USD per year to upgrade from voice-only cellular service to smartphone service. Or what am I missing?

That most people already have a smartphone.

The data plan issue is a bigger one, I think.

Comment: Re:Bank accounts for the poor (Score 4, Interesting) 389

by jonwil (#47445967) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

The problem isn't banks, its US banks.

Here in Australia I recently opened a bank account including an attached VISA Debit card (lets me pay with VISA using my own money). When I did it, the bank didn't care about my financial circumstances or anything and I was able to open the account with a single dollar coin.

The only account fees I have paid since I opened this account was an overseas transaction fee when I bought something from overseas with the VISA and a fee (charged by the ATM operator) when I used an ATM not part of the RediATM network.
I pay NO monthly fees and NO transaction fees for using RediATM ATMs, EFTPOS, VISA in Australia, bPay or internet banking.

No reason why a bank has to make it hard for people to get a bank account or charge huge fees, they just choose to because they are greedy.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 113

by drinkypoo (#47444311) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

Since when have protective tariffs been "efficient"?

If we required accounting of emissions, and not simply of currency units, then there would be no need for tariffs to address the issue of the hidden environmental costs. They can eventually be translated into economic costs, but they also affect quality of life — you can assign economic costs to that as well, but you'll hardly tell the whole story.

When you buy goods made somewhere with inadequate pollution controls, many others have to pay part of your bill. My only problem with the whole idea is that any tariffs should be used specifically for bioremediation, and my prediction is that they largely won't be.

Comment: Re:Silly season much (Score 1) 103

by drinkypoo (#47444245) Attached to: Chinese Couple Sells Children To Support Online Game Addiction

My favorite thing about free to pay games is that so many games (FtP or otherwise) are only really fun during the buildup phase, and then they get a bit samey. You can go through all that without actually spending any money. You lose the time either way. Then you move on to the next game. Along the way, if you're feeling generous, you might file some bug reports. That is an awful lot like actual work, however.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 113

by TheRaven64 (#47443833) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade
It's also a market distortion if one locale doesn't regulate pollution and allows businesses to dump waste in communal resources (e.g. rivers), making them externalities. A tariff on imports of such goods can be a way of redressing that balance - manufacturers have to pay the costs irrespective of where they produce the goods if they want to sell them in a particular country.

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.

Working...