So, I tried to buy a software package online.
I tried to use the business credit card, it was rejected because it didn't have something called "Verified by Visa" or "SecureCode." I thought being shipped to my home address and that security code on the back would be enough, but apparently not.
OK, so try to sign up. Oh wait, my business credit card doesn't support this system apparently, it says so right on their web site.
Well, fine, I'll try a personal credit card. Maybe Amex, that doesn't have anything to do with either of those systems. Error message: card is not signed up on VbV or SecureCode.
OK, we'll try a MasterCard... same thing...
Fine. I'll go to SecureCode and sign up my MasterCard. Enter the card number, fine. Enter some personal info. Rejected. Re-enter, double and triple check... Rejected, could not verify information. Account Locked.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fuck.
That.
Shit.
I'm only marginally annoyed that I didn't get to buy what I wanted. I'm utterly outraged that such a broken system was made mandatory before it was ready. Mordac lives!
inverse thinking
Monday, May 27, 2013
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Voting
I don't really get the idea that we should force everyone to vote.
There are a lot of possible objections to the idea - it should be your right not to vote as much as it is your right to spoil your ballot, you don't really want uninformed people voting anyway.
If you really want 100% voter turnout, you're probably going about it the wrong way. I think what you really want is a statistically significant voter turnout.
That is, from the list of all eligible voters, choose 20,000 completely at random and require THEM to vote. The result is probably going to be the same, and if it's too close to be sure, then expand the vote.
I wonder what it would do to political involvement though... I wonder what that would do the campaign expenditures, where there aren't obvious groups to target.
There are a lot of possible objections to the idea - it should be your right not to vote as much as it is your right to spoil your ballot, you don't really want uninformed people voting anyway.
If you really want 100% voter turnout, you're probably going about it the wrong way. I think what you really want is a statistically significant voter turnout.
That is, from the list of all eligible voters, choose 20,000 completely at random and require THEM to vote. The result is probably going to be the same, and if it's too close to be sure, then expand the vote.
I wonder what it would do to political involvement though... I wonder what that would do the campaign expenditures, where there aren't obvious groups to target.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Peeve of the Day
People who lay on the horn because I'm respecting the right of way of pedestrians and oncoming traffic.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
People
People
Who kill people
Over ideas
Make me want to kill them
But I don't
And would not condone that
There's a lesson here somewhere.
Brought to you by the killing of the US ambassador to Libya over a US film portraying the Prophet Muhammad.
Who kill people
Over ideas
Make me want to kill them
But I don't
And would not condone that
There's a lesson here somewhere.
Brought to you by the killing of the US ambassador to Libya over a US film portraying the Prophet Muhammad.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Whine, Complain
Things the Federal Liberals did that I didn't like:
Edit Sept. 10, 2012 - severed diplomatic relations with Iran
Edit Sept. 12, 2012 - oh, and I forgot the whole F-35 thing
- Canadian Firearms Registry - that's a billion dollars that could have been spent actually preventing crime
- Sponsorship Scandal
- Generally being a bunch of entitled, self-righteous twits
- Renamed the government after their leader (srsly, WTF)
- Gagged all government scientists
- Gutted scientific research and environmental review
- Gutted freedom of the press by not actually having genuine press conferences
- Suspicious electoral activity
- Generally being a bunch of entitled, self-righteous twits
- As seen in the US, politics is becoming a weird, polarized mix of marketing and sport bordering on religion
- That is, there is no substance or policy, just efforts to convince by confusion
- We're asked to pick a team to cheer for, not ask if the players are any good, if we should form our own team, or if we should play a different game entirely
Edit Sept. 10, 2012 - severed diplomatic relations with Iran
Edit Sept. 12, 2012 - oh, and I forgot the whole F-35 thing
Sunday, August 26, 2012
A Tragedy
Once upon a time
On a network long ago
Academics and scholars,
Scientists and intellectuals
Discussed logic and theology
Pondered science and philosophy
With civility and decorum
And a semblance of respect for others.
Then the Great Unwashed Masses showed up and fucked everything up.
The End
On a network long ago
Academics and scholars,
Scientists and intellectuals
Discussed logic and theology
Pondered science and philosophy
With civility and decorum
And a semblance of respect for others.
Then the Great Unwashed Masses showed up and fucked everything up.
The End
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Personality Types
Consider a continuum of personality:
A. People that will "be good" regardless of laws
B. People that will "be good" because it's the law
C. People that will "be good" in fear of the law
D. People that will "be good" because cost-benefit suggests they should
E. People that will "be bad" because cost-benefit suggests they should
F. People that will "be bad" because they don't fear the law
G. People that will "be bad" because they oppose the law
H. People that will "be bad" because they don't consider the law
Problems with the world:
More importantly, laws are somewhat ineffective at changing behavior, and weak or selective enforcement makes it even worse.
A. People that will "be good" regardless of laws
B. People that will "be good" because it's the law
C. People that will "be good" in fear of the law
D. People that will "be good" because cost-benefit suggests they should
E. People that will "be bad" because cost-benefit suggests they should
F. People that will "be bad" because they don't fear the law
G. People that will "be bad" because they oppose the law
H. People that will "be bad" because they don't consider the law
Problems with the world:
- If Rule of Law is diminished, people from (C) and (D) will shift to (E) and (F)
- If laws are oppressive, irrational or misguided, people will shift from (B) to (G)
- If people are not taught from an early age to be (A) or (B), they will probably end up (H)
More importantly, laws are somewhat ineffective at changing behavior, and weak or selective enforcement makes it even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)