It's not really supposed to be secure against fraud by card thieves. It's supposed to deter actual cardholders from falsely repudiating their own purchases. If you chargeback a purchase as unauthorized, the retailer should be able to produce the slip with your signature on it. Then you can be asked under oath or penalty of prosecution, whether or not it is your signature. It also provides protection against errors. If you are erroneously charged multiple times for one for one transaction, the retailer will only be able to produce a single signed slip. If you actually make multiple purchases in the same amount in a row, there would be multiple, signed slips with different timestamps and distinguishably different signaturs.
There's a fiction that the retailer should compare the signature on the card to the slip, reinforced by a few large retailers with policies of checking that the card is in fact signed, but this obviously doesn't happen.
> The guy who steals my mag stripe has to find a store without chip readers to make use of the stripe.
Like 90% of stores in USA today? Oh the pain. And what is likely to happen after the clerk apologizes for the reader being broken is that he keys in the card number manually. What, manual entry is going to be blocked too? Good luck with that. As long as lost sales to nonworking transactions >>> fraud, it's happening.
In February, Visa claims all of 17% of retailers have chip-capable terminals. My experience is that only a small fraction of chip-capable terminals are actually integrated with a POS system that enables them. Leading to the ridiculous situation of consumers facing 83% of retail locations with no chip reader, having to swipe, most of the rest having a useless chip slot and icon, and some small percentage <10% of locations actually having a working, functional chip slot (visually indistinguable from nonfunctional ones). Even where they do work, usability is poor. Beeps, lights, multitudinous prompts or even spoken instructions, and processing times in excess of five seconds or more where the stripes are just swipe and sign a second or two later.
True, but the story is about glitches with Citigroup USA. pokstad is referring to Costco Citi cards in the USA. Some USA issues will allow you to SET a pin on chipcards (rarely by default), but they are not REQUIRED at the POS by any retailers in the USA. None will, because that's not the industry agreement standard and would lock out the majority of consumers. The adoption has been a giant clusterfuck. Most retailers are still taking stripe only. It's the weakest link. Until retailers stop accepting stripes and chip + signature, there's no need to steal the PIN.
Hell, it's 2016 and I'm still encountering retailers who end up having to key in the card, or in a couple of cases still do offline processing with manual carbon-slip imprints.
Our shitty American cards affect the rest of the world too. Traveling to Europe over the past decade+ until 2015 I apologize for my unexpectedly chipless card everywhere I went (never had much trouble using it though); same with Canada up to present. They all have chip+PIN, but our cards go through without and spit out a receipt with a signature line.
All chip + signature cards in the USA have a stripe too (excepting maybe a tiny fraction of retail cards). They have to, or something like 90% of POS will not accept them. Full rollout is going to take years. As long as there is a stripe and merchants accept the stripe, the stripe can be cloned. Yes, retailers who take the stripe when the issued card has a chip will be on the hook instead of the bank, but thieves don't care if the retailer or the bank pays.
I would agree it is completely stupid to remove and walk off with an ATM skimmer in a foreign country, all before calling the cops. There are so many ways that could end badly. There's nothing informative or educational that couldn't be shown by pictures or videos at the ATM and calling cops right away (the poster is now claiming he did call cops when he was able to get to a phone; this is still not impressive).
However, this is an ATM skimmer + PIN cam. Not credit card fraud. Debit and ATM cards have much less protection. Consumers have 0 liability for CC fraud; when but your card is skimmed and PIN is stolen your checking account can get emptied, and you potentially have the burden of proving that it wasn't you using your card in a card-present, PIN transaction.
1. OP has closed this AMA and will not be replying.
2. OP specifically stated that he would answer questions only on immigration in general and would not comment or provide legal advice of specific cases, which is exactly what you are asking for. No reputable attorney will do this for randoms on the Internet. Not only is it a liability issue, but rules on ethics, attorney-client relationship, and practice out-of-state prevent this.
3. If you are this successful, you should privately consult with an attorney who can answer all your questions and represent you in your application to USCIS.
Yeah, I know, right? I don't trust actual, qualified fund analysts to pick real investments for me, I stick largely to index funds. Yet a bunch of cryptoweenies have decided to pool their money in cryptoweenie form in some kind of insane, fragile investment club, so a bunch of cryptoweenies stupid enough to think this is a good idea can collectively vote on what to do with each others money by simple majority vote, without restriction? No. Just no.
Right now the proponent of this fraudulent scheme, slock.it, is actually urging people to spam the blockchain to slow down the rate of theft. Yet the true believers are claiming this is a "learning experience" that will make it all better in the long run. It's beyond satire.
Oh, nobody saw that coming. Completely unforeseeable.
What other mature, ready-for-primetime autonomous altcoin networks can I dump my savings into for no apparent reason?
Edit: "DAO token holders and ethereum users should sit tight and remain calm. Exchanges should feel safe in resuming trading ETH."
No they shouldn't. They should running screaming for the exit doors. Less than two months after the launch of this mysterious "DAO" with an entirely bogus value proposition, 1/3 of the money put in, worth presently some $39 million USD in real money, has been confirmed stolen.
> If you add CA certificates for the Wifi they probably (I'm not sure if you can tell it manually to not do that) are added to the system-wide trust store.
Internet Properties -> Content -> Certificates -> Advanced
It's "empowering" in that sense for anyone to get more money. It's "empowering women" to give them opportunities, including economic opportunities, which they don't already have or to which there are barriers.
What I'm saying is that chickens are not "empowering women" in societies where it is and always has been acceptable, status quo, and already conventional for women to raise chickens; a "woman's animal," small and "close to home," for domestic purposes. They already have that opportunity!
Empowering would be raising goats and challenging the notion of a "woman's animal." Or maybe, you know, getting some education and having a life beyond subsistence farming.
I get what the words say. What I am remarking on is that engaging in domestic, socially-acceptable and conventionally female work around the household for the economic benefit of ones family (as opposed to oneself) is a highly strained interpretation of "empowering."
Yes, if the alternative is wallowing in penury and being completely economically dependent, it is certainly better. But empowering?
> The license for prototyping seems to be the same one for release. And Qt isn't offering me a free product, their terms are pay then develop your software. At least in my context.
Their standard Qt for Application Development license gives you a free 30 day evaluation period. Also, I don't think any of this encompasses simply examining the free product without use in product development, e.g., reading the APIs, documentation, and source code. That's a lot of freebies, that you don't necessarily get with other commercial products.
> In any event the only issue is the weird quirk of the Qt commercial license preventing you from switching to commercial from LGPL. Which I and apparently a few other people in the thread really didn't get at first.
There's no weird quirk. As they state, "If you have already started the development with an open-source version of Qt, please contact The Qt Company to resolve the issue." If you have money, they will take your money. But if you want to develop a commercial product and use Qt up front then you have to budget for it. If you can't afford it then use something else. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to develop a proprietary product with Qt.
> Why do many enterprise software companies offer free (or low cost) trials then?
So does Qt. So much so in fact, they even offer an entire free product; evaluate it all you want. Just don't use it to build a commercial product while paying zero dollars and then come back when it's half-built and expect to dictate pricing terms after the fact.
> Does the company that you work for (or yours if you're a founder) take the same "take it or leave it" attitude towards potential customers?
I'm not going to talk about my work here. I'm writing on my anonymous behalf only. I've worked at places that were more or less liberal with evaluations and more or less tolerant of tiny accounts. I have never worked somewhere that salespeople loved customers who wasted their time asking for freebies and handouts with illusory promises of future money that never seems to materialize.
> They empower women. Because chickens are small and typically stay close to home, many cultures regard them as a woman’s animal, in contrast to larger livestock like goats or cows. Women who sell chickens are likely to reinvest the profits in their families.
Uh... this is empowering???
EDIT:
> If you read this article, watch the video above, and answer one question below, I will donate—on your behalf via Heifer—a flock of chickens to a family in poverty.
OMG, it's finally happened for real. Anyone remember this?
"Hello everybody,
My name is Bill Gates. I have just written up an e-mail tracing program that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. I am experimenting with this and I need your help. Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list will receive $1000 at my expense. Enjoy.
Of course it adds friction. It's supposed to add friction. They wrote the code, they're a going concern, if you're going to pay they want you to commit and pay, not "prove out the concept" for free. Qt will give you a license for prototyping, you're just not willing to pay it.
Most commercial vendors won't give you their entire product for free until your own product is half-built. Qt is different; they offer an entire free product. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
And their rule of thumb is that you aren't worth the sale. Bespoke software is not a bulk commodity. They have a free product. If you're going to be a cheapskate, use it.
The notion of charging by byte, as if software were content farming, shows that you are obviously not a professional.
Except I never made the claim that nominal mileage objectively indicates vehicle wear. All I'm claiming, is that mileage is the largest factor. It doesn't matter if your driving wears out a car in 300,000 miles and my driving burns out a car at 80,000 miles. Your miles are your miles and my miles are my miles.
If we somehow manage to magically share a car, it's not going to last a lot longer than if we're wearing out our own cars at our respective rates (mine faster than yours).
But you reinforce the point that the car sitting in the parking lot or garage is not simply an over-provisioned resource by reason of being idle. If your usage patterns are so different than mine it's unrealistic to expect a configuration where we would be able to share a car.
Car-sharing has many benefits, but a car is still worth more than two half-cars.
I imagine they have sales guys. If you have a meaningful amount of money to spend they will talk to you. If not, don't use their LGPL code in a proprietary product.
Qt is not an end-user, boxed product. This may shock you, but B2B software doesn't always have a public, standard price list.
There's a fiction that the retailer should compare the signature on the card to the slip, reinforced by a few large retailers with policies of checking that the card is in fact signed, but this obviously doesn't happen.