Nobody does it like that, though. For instance, Chip+PIN wasn't all done at the same time in the UK - there was a transition period of about a decade (I think the first time I saw a chip in my credit card was a full 7 years before I saw a Chip+PIN reader in a store). There's no reason why the US has to do it all in one big bang either, and the US as a whole is smaller than the EU as a whole in terms of population.

I've had to bale out a couple of friends of mine visiting from the US when they got to a shop and their chip-less credit or debit card couldn't be used at all. The ATMs however seemed to mostly still accept chipless cards.

That isn't a good explanation in this case. The UK (and pretty much every European Union country) for instance had a swipe and sign credit card infrastructure just like the United States decades before the introduction of chip and PIN, yet the UK changed to chip and pin 10 years ago despite having the same infrastructure issue as the US.

They still use physical tickets in San Francisco? I thought it was supposed to be a high tech centre. All over the world cities are using contactless cards to do this. The Oyster system in London for instance even discourages the use of tickets by making them much more expensive.

You don't have to do it as a job. I work a pretty normal IT job full time, but by making certain sacrifices (such as I've never bought a new car nor have I ever bought a car on credit) I can afford to own my own aircraft (and I live in Europe which is a significantly more expensive place to fly than the United States). I have an antique Auster Autocrat (which cost less than most new cars), and it's the very purity of flying for the joy of it - it's uncomplicated stick and rudder flying and it's simply awesome. I can have the job I like that pays pretty well AND I can go flying places on the weekend on my own schedule.

I'm in the same (work situation) as you, yet I fly and I do so somewhere that's more expensive to fly than the United States and can afford it. It's about opportunity costs. I have never owned a new car for instance.

I fly not to do more technology (I spend 99% of my waking life tinkering with technology), I fly to get away from technology a bit. The aircraft I own has zero automation, it's an ancient Auster Autocrat (built in 1945) with pretty much the original instruments in it including World War II style gyros. It's good to be away from chittering beeping devices for a while and just look out the window at the awesome scenery. Sure it's ancient, needs lots of tinkering with, and costs a lot. Why is it worth it? I get to look out the window. I'm actually *flying myself*. I learned to fly in 1997 and I've never got tired of it.

The only bit of technology I really like to have in this environment is my iPad running SkyDemon. We have some very complex airspace not far away, and when flying cross country it makes it a bit more pleasant to have a good easy to use GPS.

Depends how you term "longer flight". When I lived in the US, our flying club had a Beech Bonanza which I used to like to fly. It cruises at about 163 knots. I lived in Texas - I could beat the airlines flying up to southern Illinois from south Texas (the Bo had enough range to go from south east TX to southern IL in one go).

I live somewhere where fuel is fantastically expensive (in the US people whine about $4 a gallon, but fuel where I live costs the equivalent of nearly $10 a gallon). I have a sensible every day use bike that's fun to ride (BMW F800ST) and requires about the same maintenance as a car (service it every year, make sure it has enough fuel and oil etc). You can bet when you can do 68mpg by riding quietly that the bike tends to get ridden quite a lot...

Not even close. I live in a country where GA is much more expensive than it is in the United States, yet I spend a fraction of that amount (even though my aircraft is an antique and needs quite a lot of TLC, and I have to pay a landing fee every time I go to the big airport to get avgas).

Grading on the curve assumes that all student cohorts are pretty similar, but that some courses/exams are easy and some are hard.

No it doesn't. It's trying to match non-random data-points to a random distribution curve. It says nothing about the difficulty of the exam.

Is it more difficult to roll a 3 on a d6 than it is to roll a 6? Of course not. It's random. But it is more difficult to roll 3d6 and get 18.

Your way assumes that all courses are exactly as hard as each other, but makes no assumptions about the other students.

Why would it need to make any assumptions about other students? Whether I know X is not dependent upon whether you know X. Or even if you do not know X.

A. Take the top 10 coders in the Linux kernel. Now "grade" them on a curve (compared to each other).

B. Now take the 10 worst coders in the world. "Grade" them on a curve (compared to each other).

What does that tell you about the skill levels between the "average" 2.5 people in A and the "exceptional" 4.0 person in B? And THAT is why grading on a curve is a bad idea.

What makes you think A is really X's friend and not some random guy that bought what they thought was a new SIM and which turns out to be used one last owned by X?

PR-wise, it doesn't matter because we (USofA!) will still claim that we killed their #2 or #3 sub-commander.

But you do raise an interesting point. Could those SIM cards be sold/donated to the enemies of X? So we (USofA!) end up killing X's enemies for him?

Cut the speaker and display wires (no sound and no lights) and you now have a "homing beacon" for a drone attack that can be hidden just about anywhere.

Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system while other top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA's targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers.

So instead of killing X you kill X's friends A, B and C.

That doesn't sound like a good plan on their part.

I'd look for ways to communicate without SIM cards. Or to trash used SIM cards. They're cheap. Really cheap.

In what world do most employees except graphics designers and hair dressers end up with a "portfolio" of work they can show?

If you're a programmer then your portfolio is the Open Source projects that you've contributed to.

I've had employers take positive note of it 7 years after I graduated and I'm sure it still supports and gives credibility to my more recent work history.

You're confusing "degree" with "GPA". Having a degree is a positive achievement. But once you get your first job you will not have to explain why you have a 3.0 GPA instead of a 4.0.

The only reason employers look at grades is to judge who is elite and who are the median.

Let me change that a bit.

The only reason employers look at grades is because you are applying for your first job and you have not built a portfolio sufficient for the hiring process.

Once you have your first job no one cares about your grades.

We actually have a time-tested way of comparing students' performance to each other: grading on a curve.

That only works when MULTIPLE RANDOM items are compared. Such as rolling 3d6.

Since answering questions on a test should NOT be random there should not be any reason to attempt to force the scores into a curve.

When I was in college (early 2000s, major American public university), all science and math courses were graded on curves, with 10-15% of the class getting As.

I started college in 1983. The grades were based upon how many questions you answered correctly. It did not matter what other students answered. Why would it?

Some students complained that they were doing well and learning the material, but are only getting Bs because of superstars in the course. To that, I say tough, because in the real world, no one is going to hire you to do anything just because you are good enough if another candidate is around who will do a better job than you will.

By that logic, a "B" student in one class could be an "A" student in the same class with the same professor on the same material with the same answers ... but in a different semester/quarter.

Which means that the smart students will learn to "game" the system.