If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.
What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.
Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.
Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.
Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.
The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:
Making an example out of Assange won't help anything though, there will just be someone else stepping up. Assange is not the problem, you are.
There's an old proverb: "When everyone you meet is an asshole, it means that you're not beating up all the assholes fast enough and if only you can speed it up, everyone else will eventually become convinced that you must be one of the good guys."
I know it doesn't sound eloquent, though.
Doesn't work that way.
*of course* it doesn't... That's was the whole point of the thought experiment.
They may store a copy of the account balance on the card. This is only for your convenience - so the card can report "out of money" and reject the offline transaction.
That would be a reasonable assumption. I wouldn't count on it... Overdraft fees are the bread and butter of banks
Technically feasible... Practically, though... much less.
Besides, all it needs is a phone line.: Classic POTS for the terminal base to be connected (the handsets can be wirelessly connected to it), and if those people had a phone, they had a connection.
I do think that below a certain threshold amount, making the connection isn't mandatory. That's usually when it goes quickly and it doesn't say "connecting". I've only seen it happen on small amounts. Do note, that this is what I conclude from the behaviour. It would be better if someone who actually knows how this works to chime in.
If anything, I do not think that it's the card that stores the transaction. It would not make any sense at all. Imagine I do a 1000€ purchase, and it would be store-on-card. At that point, I destroy the card or never use it again. My card never gets the chance to "synchronize" with anything. Now, perhaps I misunderstood what you meant with "the balance would be kept on the card", but it definitely doesn't involve storing anything on the card. It's the terminal that must store and forward the transaction. Granted, it doesn't change anything in your scenario, but given European chip 'n pin do connect, I doubt you attack would be feasible (ignoring the fact you need a 1000 unconnected terminals, which is doing to be very hard to find).
Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?