In a broad scope, I agree with you. People definitely over-use credit.
That said, it's not for you or I to force our views of fiscal responsibility on to others. If the majority of people want the ability to buy that $1999.99 handbag on insta-credit, that's their choice.
Just have to poke at general welfare... If someone gets hurt, that's what insurance is for. It's not imposisble to purchase private disability insurance even today. If someone is reckless enough to have no insurance, no savings, no family and likely no self-preservation instinct, there's still charity.
If a man loses his job due to layoffs he gets another one. Somebody is hiring, somewhere. If he has no marketable skills then get a brainless type job. Will he still be driving his ferrari if he didn't plan ahead? Nope. QQ Then again layoffs are more a product of our stock-holder driven ecconomy if you ask me. If no one is hiring anywhere then it's the great depression round 2 and society will get smacked in the head by reality finally.
Benefits package getting smaller? No insurance? Well that's a combination of disgustingly overpriced and overregulated medical care and, again, business decisions being focused on stockholder pennies instead, investor relations, and the CEO's bonus.
Taxing goods from overseas heavily? Great idea. Stifle growth some more. Don't expect our ecconomy to adapt at all, just punch the other guy in the balls because we're not capable of a fair fight. Over taxing goods just results in "criminals" circumventing the taxes because it's cheaper and there's more profit that way. Sad if the 'greatest country in the world' can't compete with some 3rd world piss-pot no-mans-land.
Yes, because I'm going to hit another vehicle hiding between bushes and trees or behind the corner of a bridge overpass, etc. I would actually have a very hard time INTENTIONALLY hitting a car in such a place.
There's also a huge difference between intentionally hiding out of sight and other traffic in my 3 second bubble. I'm not worried about stupid/bad drivers if they're no where near me.
Or worse, the number of companies who don't change access passwords on generic accounts every time an elevated user leaves the company. This is EXACTLY why many companies (i believe it's a SOX requirement, certainly an audit item) will not make generic accounts. Policy requires every account be tied back to a person so it can be immediately disabled upon their departure.
Otherwise I could sit outside the building with a can-tenna or similar and download eveything I want while enjoying unemployment.
To some extent, security through obscurity is absolutely necessary.
Not if your systems are properly secured. Unless you consider obscurity keeping your actual password(s) secret:)
Seriously though: most systems have some vulnerabilities and explaining the details will occasionally open the door for someone who knows more than you do. Yes, it's good to keep this information private. BUT, when designing a security system you need to work based on the assumption that an attacker knows the entire layout. Knows exactly what hardware, software, version, firmware, etc. you have exactly. Anything less is NOT a properly secured system.
If a network is properly secured the person/group/department who designed it should not be able to gain unauthorized access
Agreed, but anti-nuclear activists love to spout numbers like that because ZOMG IT WILL BE AROUND FOREVERZ. Never mind what's actually dangerous and a concern to society!
For what it's worth, my stepdaughter has a keychain toy with more memory and processing power than we went to the moon with. I have a PDA that processes and stores what would have taken...a skyscraper full of discrete transistors and core memory. Give or take, but the point of scaling down by multiple orders of magnitude is obvious.
Will we be evaporating nuclear waste next year? Nah. Do we have the possibility to develop the precursor technology in the next 10-20 years for properly disposing of stored long half-life waste 50 years down the road? Quite possibly. That makes nuclear waste storage much, much more practical.
After all, we don't necessarialy need MORE of the secret sauce. We may just need to concentrate it, tune it, shape it...or what have you to make it many times more effective. First we need to understand it thought:)
Does this remind anyone else of the 'rules' behind FTL drive in most sci-fi books? Ya-da ya-da gravity well means no FTL but once you move away from the singularity... zooooooooom. Granted I'm now comparing sci-fi "physics" with a minor observed variation in real life....but shhhh!
Except the clocks would all speed up and slow down:)
It's kind of a catch-22 - how do you measure the accuracy of the most accurate clock? Granted the decay rate doesn't appear to be changing the same amount as the transition state may or may not be.
Actually it's very easy. You answer and say "Do not call me ever again". Generally this works best if you're recording and have them clearly identify who they are and what exactly they're calling about.
If they call you, it's harassment and/or violation of FCC/telemarketing law. You can sue for monetary damages/penalties.
Granted, if you tell them to F off they can take you to court or issue a chargeback against your credit. The vaugely smart ones will not, however, call again.
Actually, you probably DO use credit even if you don't realize it. Many car insurance companies use your credit score as part of determining your rates.
Keep in mind that, in today's instant-gratification society, no one wants to wait 5-15 business days (or even one) for a credit application approval. Hell, you can get a MORTGAGE approved in less time than the paperwork takes at some places today.
It's MUCH more difficult to create a system where an individual can, from anywhere at any time with no need to have anything special with them, have their credit (and identity) verified without the possibility of fraud. This is awfully complicated to do without a significant inconvinience to the individual. I assume credit monitoring and fraud insurance/limited liability is a less expensive alternative.
Compare to DRM for music. No one likes it and companies have essentially thrown in the towel and decided it's easier to accept some piracy in return for greater sales and less overhead maintaining the DRM system and providing end-user support.
That said, I think it would be prudent to offer the OPTION of real security. Some banks use SecureID FOBs. The down side is it can limit impulse credit purchases/applications which make credit institutions more money than fraud costs then. In addition, i'm sure a reasonable % of fradulent purchases/charges are NOT caught or reported and thus just make the credit companies more money. So yeah, back to DRM logic.
Sorry, but as much as i dislike 'big business' the government is worse. At least if you're running a company you look to do things efficiently and not in obvious violation of the law. As a governmental agency you have none of that. If the waste, graft, and red tape come to the attention of a media outlet looking for a story then you're forced to look like you're cleaning up your act for a while. You also have very little legal accountibility compared to a private business.
General welfare programs: The GOVERNMENT should not and would not need to provide these - if it wasn't virtually impossible to get it elsewhere. "shit happens" - true - but your utter disinterest in planning for things that go bump in the night shouldn't obligate someone ELSE to care for you. Take out insurance, use a charity. Massive spending on the welfare program that is grossly abused by so many does not help the overall 'greater good'. It helps the minority at the (great) expense of the majority.
Commerce: No no no. A thousand times no. First off, big companies have the lobbying power to generally get whatever they want. Their abuse of the commerce regulations is what led to jobs going overseas and the H1-B visa nonsense. We have so much regulation, red tape, and similar nonsense that of COURSE they're going to export jobs to where people simply want to work for a livable wage. Do we have a commerce problem? Yes. It's driven by greed of big business and the corruption in our commerce regulation.
-ignoring ann rand comment-
You confuse what a 'right' is. Go read the constitution some time. If someone drives 70 and goes through a light slightly after it turns red or on an empty road there's no harm done - why do you even care? If someone hits your car and is at fault, they should be resonsible for any damanges or injuries in full.
Yes, I have a right to use them. I will use them, indirectly of course, to provide defense of my country (or invade someone who pisses us off...but i digress/bushism) as needed. If you want to do analogies then try to be accurate (and don't use car analogies!). Those 5778 manned aircraft will protect me even if i'm a fuck-tard sitting in jail for DUI.
Public transit is simply NOT an option for a large portion of our population. It's also irrelevant.
Oh, in NY I frequently see cops pull up to a red light in a major intersection, slow down, look both ways...flip the lights to go through if it's clear and then turn them back off and go on their merry way.
How exactly does speeding hurt someone? HITTING someone will hurt them. Forcing them off the road because you can't control your car can hurt them. While it's more likely if you're going fast, it's not guaranteed and there are PLENTY of other things that also increase the same risks. A bad driver going 50 is easily as dangerous as a professional race car driver going 200.
Driving fast by itself DOES NOT HURT PEOPLE. Why are things like this so hard to comprehend? If it's 6:30AM and sunny on a warm clear summer day with not a car in sight in the few miles I can see in front or behind me, why can't I go 150MPH on a highway in a Ferrari? Who exactly would be injured? Besides costing ME almost 3x the time, what would slowing down to 55 accomplish?
It's pooled funds for public projects (kind of an 'uh, duh' moment eh?) so no individual has specific ownership of a part. That's the WHOLE POINT of pooling funds in a society to accomplish things an individual could not...except retarded licensing laws actually work against this basic concept.
If, however, you owned some land and paid to have a road built and maintained - you could then limit access, charge for access, or drive while drunk as you pleased. You confuse public works with private ownership.
You can't opt out of paying for the roads. Therefore no, he shouldn't be banned.
If he runs someone over because he's drunk and kills them - toss him in an electric chair and be done with it. The next guy will think VERRRRRRY carefully - not about what BAC he's going to blow but if he's actually OK to drive safely. Some people can drive fine (or nearly enough) with a BAC above.10. Others have issues standing up unaided at or below.04. It varies per person. To make matters worse, studies have shown that distracted driving (cell phone - hands free or not, makeup, newspaper, eating, kids) or driving while tired can be AT LEAST as imparing as being drunk.
Here's a suggestion - make people responsible for the outcome of their actions. Don't criminalize things if no one is being hurt, inconviniences, or suffering some kind of loss. It seems like a brutal system (let the DUI's go free and kill someone) at first but if we attach REAL penalties that match the ACTUAL loss the dumb people will be weeded out plenty quickly.
Except I have no choice but to PAY for that priviledge or go to jail for tax evasion (ok, perhaps a fine but...then I have to pay anyhow). So it's OK to be forced to pay for the roads that i can be prohibited from using - and no one sees an issue here?
It's all part of a system that makes a crime out of things with no victim. If I don't have plates on my car *at all*, who exactly is getting hurt?
Heck, all you need to do is hire the lawyer that plays golf with the judge every sunday and you win.*
Much of what you see in "law drama" on TV is utter BS. The system is set up to ensure lawyers and judges are the real winners regardless of the verdict.
*Unless evidence is so obscenely against you that you need to hire the laweyer that plays golf with him on saturday and the lawyer who's married to the judge's wife's tennis instructor as well to win./sarcasm
The whole idea of such a system is to reward health not sickness. As it is right now, health-care providers have a financial incentive to treat you and treat you, but not to make you well.
Amazing how just about any other industry offers some kind of warranty or service guarantee. Doctors in the US spend 5 minutes (4.5 of which is actually the nurse) to make their diagnosis and send you on your way. A few days later when it's obvious they were wrong you go back...another co-pay or payment, another.5 minutes...and another 'scrip to pay for. Rinse and repeat.
There's little to no benefit for the DR to cure you. Someone might argue that a bad dr would lose business but that's obviously not the case. Just about every DR office is booked and over-booked these days. Who here hasn't spend 30-60 minutes in a waiting room past your appointment time despite showing up 5-15 minutes early?
Our healthcare system in the US is plenty fscked up as it stands. When I need overpriced healthcare (or to pay $100+ out of pocket) to simply to go a dr and get 'permission' to get antibiotics for a common illness that any mother could diagnose with 99% accuracy...and then pay another $20-$100 for the actual pills that cost a few pennies to make (and who's R&D is long, LONG since paid for)...I question if we could do better or worse.
In an open system if doctor/hospital XYZ refused to offer whatever service, then someone else will. Open/free market. "real" doctors and hospitals generally don't deal with accupuncture or other holistic therapies but there's a demand for it and, somehow, that demand is met anyhow even today.
Sorry, but when I'm anything less than deathly ill and my doctor says the next available appointment is in 5 days I don't consider that good quality. Yet without that visit... no meds.
So what you're saying is that the fucked up state of society is everyone's fault and no one's responsibility?
Well, no one except the mythical government programs. Let's stand around and watch a mugging, heart attack, and car accident...and just wait for the 'authorities' to show up. Let's assume that the drug-dealing children who only to to school for the purpose of pushing drugs and causing mayham still 'deserve' an education instead of a beating.
Call libertarian dreams what you will, but I think setting up a system where people can legitimately work for what they want offers a better option that your gun toting criminals taking over while people feverently dial 911 only to get put on hold because some guy got the wrong sandwich from Subway again.
So yes, let's coddle everyone. Let's ensure everyone gets "schooling" and "healthcare" of whatever questionable quality regardless of their contribution to society.
Slashdot Mirror
In a broad scope, I agree with you. People definitely over-use credit.
That said, it's not for you or I to force our views of fiscal responsibility on to others. If the majority of people want the ability to buy that $1999.99 handbag on insta-credit, that's their choice.
Just have to poke at general welfare... If someone gets hurt, that's what insurance is for. It's not imposisble to purchase private disability insurance even today. If someone is reckless enough to have no insurance, no savings, no family and likely no self-preservation instinct, there's still charity.
If a man loses his job due to layoffs he gets another one. Somebody is hiring, somewhere. If he has no marketable skills then get a brainless type job. Will he still be driving his ferrari if he didn't plan ahead? Nope. QQ Then again layoffs are more a product of our stock-holder driven ecconomy if you ask me. If no one is hiring anywhere then it's the great depression round 2 and society will get smacked in the head by reality finally.
Benefits package getting smaller? No insurance? Well that's a combination of disgustingly overpriced and overregulated medical care and, again, business decisions being focused on stockholder pennies instead, investor relations, and the CEO's bonus.
Taxing goods from overseas heavily? Great idea. Stifle growth some more. Don't expect our ecconomy to adapt at all, just punch the other guy in the balls because we're not capable of a fair fight. Over taxing goods just results in "criminals" circumventing the taxes because it's cheaper and there's more profit that way. Sad if the 'greatest country in the world' can't compete with some 3rd world piss-pot no-mans-land.
Yes, because I'm going to hit another vehicle hiding between bushes and trees or behind the corner of a bridge overpass, etc. I would actually have a very hard time INTENTIONALLY hitting a car in such a place.
There's also a huge difference between intentionally hiding out of sight and other traffic in my 3 second bubble. I'm not worried about stupid/bad drivers if they're no where near me.
Or worse, the number of companies who don't change access passwords on generic accounts every time an elevated user leaves the company. This is EXACTLY why many companies (i believe it's a SOX requirement, certainly an audit item) will not make generic accounts. Policy requires every account be tied back to a person so it can be immediately disabled upon their departure.
Otherwise I could sit outside the building with a can-tenna or similar and download eveything I want while enjoying unemployment.
Not if your systems are properly secured. Unless you consider obscurity keeping your actual password(s) secret :)
Seriously though: most systems have some vulnerabilities and explaining the details will occasionally open the door for someone who knows more than you do. Yes, it's good to keep this information private. BUT, when designing a security system you need to work based on the assumption that an attacker knows the entire layout. Knows exactly what hardware, software, version, firmware, etc. you have exactly. Anything less is NOT a properly secured system.
If a network is properly secured the person/group/department who designed it should not be able to gain unauthorized access
Agreed, but anti-nuclear activists love to spout numbers like that because ZOMG IT WILL BE AROUND FOREVERZ. Never mind what's actually dangerous and a concern to society!
For what it's worth, my stepdaughter has a keychain toy with more memory and processing power than we went to the moon with. I have a PDA that processes and stores what would have taken...a skyscraper full of discrete transistors and core memory. Give or take, but the point of scaling down by multiple orders of magnitude is obvious.
Will we be evaporating nuclear waste next year? Nah. Do we have the possibility to develop the precursor technology in the next 10-20 years for properly disposing of stored long half-life waste 50 years down the road? Quite possibly. That makes nuclear waste storage much, much more practical.
After all, we don't necessarialy need MORE of the secret sauce. We may just need to concentrate it, tune it, shape it...or what have you to make it many times more effective. First we need to understand it thought :)
Does this remind anyone else of the 'rules' behind FTL drive in most sci-fi books? Ya-da ya-da gravity well means no FTL but once you move away from the singularity ... zooooooooom. Granted I'm now comparing sci-fi "physics" with a minor observed variation in real life....but shhhh!
Except the clocks would all speed up and slow down :)
It's kind of a catch-22 - how do you measure the accuracy of the most accurate clock? Granted the decay rate doesn't appear to be changing the same amount as the transition state may or may not be.
Actually it's very easy. You answer and say "Do not call me ever again". Generally this works best if you're recording and have them clearly identify who they are and what exactly they're calling about.
If they call you, it's harassment and/or violation of FCC/telemarketing law. You can sue for monetary damages/penalties.
Granted, if you tell them to F off they can take you to court or issue a chargeback against your credit. The vaugely smart ones will not, however, call again.
Actually, you probably DO use credit even if you don't realize it. Many car insurance companies use your credit score as part of determining your rates.
Have you read the small print you sign when filling out any credit app?
No, neither have I.
I'll bet you some karma that it includes a liability waiver for the company you're applying with and the reporting credit bureaus as well.
Yes and no.
Keep in mind that, in today's instant-gratification society, no one wants to wait 5-15 business days (or even one) for a credit application approval. Hell, you can get a MORTGAGE approved in less time than the paperwork takes at some places today.
It's MUCH more difficult to create a system where an individual can, from anywhere at any time with no need to have anything special with them, have their credit (and identity) verified without the possibility of fraud. This is awfully complicated to do without a significant inconvinience to the individual. I assume credit monitoring and fraud insurance/limited liability is a less expensive alternative.
Compare to DRM for music. No one likes it and companies have essentially thrown in the towel and decided it's easier to accept some piracy in return for greater sales and less overhead maintaining the DRM system and providing end-user support.
That said, I think it would be prudent to offer the OPTION of real security. Some banks use SecureID FOBs. The down side is it can limit impulse credit purchases/applications which make credit institutions more money than fraud costs then. In addition, i'm sure a reasonable % of fradulent purchases/charges are NOT caught or reported and thus just make the credit companies more money. So yeah, back to DRM logic.
Sure you can vote out a private company: Don't buy from them.
Sorry, but as much as i dislike 'big business' the government is worse. At least if you're running a company you look to do things efficiently and not in obvious violation of the law. As a governmental agency you have none of that. If the waste, graft, and red tape come to the attention of a media outlet looking for a story then you're forced to look like you're cleaning up your act for a while. You also have very little legal accountibility compared to a private business.
General welfare programs: The GOVERNMENT should not and would not need to provide these - if it wasn't virtually impossible to get it elsewhere. "shit happens" - true - but your utter disinterest in planning for things that go bump in the night shouldn't obligate someone ELSE to care for you. Take out insurance, use a charity. Massive spending on the welfare program that is grossly abused by so many does not help the overall 'greater good'. It helps the minority at the (great) expense of the majority.
Commerce: No no no. A thousand times no. First off, big companies have the lobbying power to generally get whatever they want. Their abuse of the commerce regulations is what led to jobs going overseas and the H1-B visa nonsense. We have so much regulation, red tape, and similar nonsense that of COURSE they're going to export jobs to where people simply want to work for a livable wage. Do we have a commerce problem? Yes. It's driven by greed of big business and the corruption in our commerce regulation.
-ignoring ann rand comment-
You confuse what a 'right' is. Go read the constitution some time. If someone drives 70 and goes through a light slightly after it turns red or on an empty road there's no harm done - why do you even care? If someone hits your car and is at fault, they should be resonsible for any damanges or injuries in full.
And if you got home OK without injuring anyone or causing any accidents who, exactly, is the victim of your "crime" of driving drunk?
Yes, I have a right to use them. I will use them, indirectly of course, to provide defense of my country (or invade someone who pisses us off...but i digress /bushism) as needed. If you want to do analogies then try to be accurate (and don't use car analogies!). Those 5778 manned aircraft will protect me even if i'm a fuck-tard sitting in jail for DUI.
Public transit is simply NOT an option for a large portion of our population. It's also irrelevant.
Oh, in NY I frequently see cops pull up to a red light in a major intersection, slow down, look both ways...flip the lights to go through if it's clear and then turn them back off and go on their merry way.
Who's watching the watchers?
How exactly does speeding hurt someone? HITTING someone will hurt them. Forcing them off the road because you can't control your car can hurt them. While it's more likely if you're going fast, it's not guaranteed and there are PLENTY of other things that also increase the same risks. A bad driver going 50 is easily as dangerous as a professional race car driver going 200.
Driving fast by itself DOES NOT HURT PEOPLE. Why are things like this so hard to comprehend? If it's 6:30AM and sunny on a warm clear summer day with not a car in sight in the few miles I can see in front or behind me, why can't I go 150MPH on a highway in a Ferrari? Who exactly would be injured? Besides costing ME almost 3x the time, what would slowing down to 55 accomplish?
It's pooled funds for public projects (kind of an 'uh, duh' moment eh?) so no individual has specific ownership of a part. That's the WHOLE POINT of pooling funds in a society to accomplish things an individual could not...except retarded licensing laws actually work against this basic concept.
If, however, you owned some land and paid to have a road built and maintained - you could then limit access, charge for access, or drive while drunk as you pleased. You confuse public works with private ownership.
You can't opt out of paying for the roads. Therefore no, he shouldn't be banned.
If he runs someone over because he's drunk and kills them - toss him in an electric chair and be done with it. The next guy will think VERRRRRRY carefully - not about what BAC he's going to blow but if he's actually OK to drive safely. Some people can drive fine (or nearly enough) with a BAC above .10. Others have issues standing up unaided at or below .04. It varies per person. To make matters worse, studies have shown that distracted driving (cell phone - hands free or not, makeup, newspaper, eating, kids) or driving while tired can be AT LEAST as imparing as being drunk.
Here's a suggestion - make people responsible for the outcome of their actions. Don't criminalize things if no one is being hurt, inconviniences, or suffering some kind of loss. It seems like a brutal system (let the DUI's go free and kill someone) at first but if we attach REAL penalties that match the ACTUAL loss the dumb people will be weeded out plenty quickly.
Except I have no choice but to PAY for that priviledge or go to jail for tax evasion (ok, perhaps a fine but...then I have to pay anyhow). So it's OK to be forced to pay for the roads that i can be prohibited from using - and no one sees an issue here?
It's all part of a system that makes a crime out of things with no victim. If I don't have plates on my car *at all*, who exactly is getting hurt?
Heck, all you need to do is hire the lawyer that plays golf with the judge every sunday and you win.*
Much of what you see in "law drama" on TV is utter BS. The system is set up to ensure lawyers and judges are the real winners regardless of the verdict.
*Unless evidence is so obscenely against you that you need to hire the laweyer that plays golf with him on saturday and the lawyer who's married to the judge's wife's tennis instructor as well to win. /sarcasm
Amazing how just about any other industry offers some kind of warranty or service guarantee. Doctors in the US spend 5 minutes (4.5 of which is actually the nurse) to make their diagnosis and send you on your way. A few days later when it's obvious they were wrong you go back...another co-pay or payment, another .5 minutes...and another 'scrip to pay for. Rinse and repeat.
There's little to no benefit for the DR to cure you. Someone might argue that a bad dr would lose business but that's obviously not the case. Just about every DR office is booked and over-booked these days. Who here hasn't spend 30-60 minutes in a waiting room past your appointment time despite showing up 5-15 minutes early?
Our healthcare system in the US is plenty fscked up as it stands. When I need overpriced healthcare (or to pay $100+ out of pocket) to simply to go a dr and get 'permission' to get antibiotics for a common illness that any mother could diagnose with 99% accuracy...and then pay another $20-$100 for the actual pills that cost a few pennies to make (and who's R&D is long, LONG since paid for)...I question if we could do better or worse.
In an open system if doctor/hospital XYZ refused to offer whatever service, then someone else will. Open/free market. "real" doctors and hospitals generally don't deal with accupuncture or other holistic therapies but there's a demand for it and, somehow, that demand is met anyhow even today.
Sorry, but when I'm anything less than deathly ill and my doctor says the next available appointment is in 5 days I don't consider that good quality. Yet without that visit ... no meds.
So what you're saying is that the fucked up state of society is everyone's fault and no one's responsibility?
Well, no one except the mythical government programs. Let's stand around and watch a mugging, heart attack, and car accident...and just wait for the 'authorities' to show up. Let's assume that the drug-dealing children who only to to school for the purpose of pushing drugs and causing mayham still 'deserve' an education instead of a beating.
Call libertarian dreams what you will, but I think setting up a system where people can legitimately work for what they want offers a better option that your gun toting criminals taking over while people feverently dial 911 only to get put on hold because some guy got the wrong sandwich from Subway again.
So yes, let's coddle everyone. Let's ensure everyone gets "schooling" and "healthcare" of whatever questionable quality regardless of their contribution to society.