My e-mail to the school principal did request that they try to put all documents to be downloaded/printed by parents in PDF format. Many of the documents that the school system distributes are in PDF format, this one was not. Having the documents easily readable for a variety of home users is especially important because the school is moving towards a more-or-less paperless information publishing model. I wholly support that model. Anyone who has seen the volume of paper that a school system can generate in notices from the school and teachers to the parents can appreciate the savings it would provide.
I think it would be a bit easier to get the school system to always provide PDF if Windows included a "print to PDF" function like Mac OS X has (Windows is still missing this, isn't it?) I know that I use it all the time to save copies of web site pages such as electronic receipts for on-line purchases. If it were just a local school system that I was dealing with, I would try to help them get some free or low-cost software to add this functionality. However, we have a county-wide school system with 120,000 students and the IT department isn't very accessible and doesn't like any local interference with the centrally-managed configuration (which isn't surprising).
or not... I have a Macintosh computer, not Windows. However, you did inspire me to make another check of the Microsoft web site for a patch to the Mac version of Word. Instead of a patch, I found the "Open XML File Format Converter for Mac 1.1.1." I downloaded and installed it, and it did the job - it converted the school's ".docx" file into a.doc and automatically ran Word to open the.doc, which I can then save, edit, whatever.
I wasn't trying to be a troll, I was just being a bit thick. In my defense, I have lived through several generations of MS Office applications that *did* encourage upgrades in larger user communities by changing the default internal format of the ".doc" file in newer versions. The longer-term customer care that we now enjoy was won due to lots of complaints in the past.
Incidentally, I had looked for an Open XML update for my version of Word when I first encountered a ".docx" file, and hadn't found one. The separate converter does the job, though, so I withdraw my complaint.
Sure... just this month I went to my school system's web site to download the "back to school" supply lists for my kids. I downloaded the list, but couldn't open the file because it was in Microsoft's latest and greatest format -Office Open XML. My perfectly adequate copy of Microsoft Word couldn't open it... my "Open Office" suite could open it, but it sure wasn't formatted on my screen/printer the way the original author viewed it.
So, I can either try to convince the school admins to save in the old ".doc" format, or I can upgrade my perfectly functional copy of Office to the latest and greatest. Which do you think I'll have more success at doing?
Isn't that exactly why we have the concept of "sin"? What is a sin other than an action that benefits the individual at the expense of society?
I could go around stealing from my neighbor's houses while they are at work, and I would simply be maximizing the socio-economic status of my family. I almost have a duty to do that, don' t I?
I think the concept of defining "sins" applicable on the world of IT is interesting. Surely tilting the outcome of a standards body isn't in the best interests of society. Surely "embracing and extending" standards to create platform lock-in isn't in the best interests of society. Surely teaching plainly incorrect information to those who don't know better (my favorite - Q: What was the first multi-tasking multi-user operating system? A: Microsoft Windows NT) isn't in the best interests of society. Aren't these things "sins" or is it every person for themselves, only the strong survive?
I would hope that these sins aren't just used to thrash Microsoft, however. Perhaps they can lay the philosophical groundwork for a sense of overall ethics in operating system and software development and deployment. Then, instead of a vague sense of unease as an unscrupulous individual or firm "maximizes their own status" at the expense of society, we would have a clear understanding of why their actions were wrong.
I like to bring up a little item called "equally-informed consent." If two people of like age and maturity engage in sexual play, equally-informed consent is present. But if a much older person engages in sexual play with a younger person, esp. one not long past puberty, then equally-informed consent is not present. Without equally informed consent the probability that damage will occur is very high. If you factor in how society will react to both parties, the possibility of damage is even higher. I guess if you think its ok for con artists to rip-off old people by playing on their weaknesses and fears, then you wouldn't have any problem with a sexually experienced mature individual having their way with a sexually inexperienced and immature person.
The same standard can be applied with respect to mental capacity wherein a person who is older in age but has a reduced mental capacity would not be an appropriate sexual partner for a person of the same age with normal mental capacity.
Bingo! A US SSN is exactly like the keys to the castle for a would-be "identify theft" perpetrator. If the laws were changed to make the burden of proof on the business that gave out goods, services, or cash to prove that the person that they gave them out to was the same person that they were trying to collect from, I think that "identity theft" would disappear. The "I made a bad loan" crime isn't nearly as sexy.
When you file your US Federal tax return, you need to have social security numbers for the children you claim as dependents. So... I guess you don't have to get your children SSNs, but then you can't claim the deduction for them. Later on, however, they will need to have an SSN so that the FICA "taxes" taken out of their pay can be attributed to their earnings record at the Social Security Administration.
If Social Security is a tax, why isn't the amount paid into the Social Security fund deductible from my gross income for federal and state tax calculations? In general, most taxes paid are deductible from income. Unless I've made a mistake, Social Security payments that you make are not deducted from your gross income when calculating income tax. Social Security is administered as a separate program from the general US federal tax program, and I believe that it is meant to represent a compact between workers and the government whereby you get paid money out based on what you paid in, not based on your need or worthiness of government largess after you retire.
I already covered in an earlier comment the calculation showing that I will not receive as much in benefits as I have added in value to the Social Security system. I don't mind this necessarily, but it is not true to claim that everyone gets out more than they put in; they don't. Especially when you account for the expected growth in principle that should occur. The IRS doesn't even let you loan family members money without assuming you receive interest income on the loan, so the Social Security program shouldn't be reviewed as if years of contributions don't have any principle growth *and* changes in the value of the underlying monetary unit, both of which could eliminate any "on paper" claim of a greater amount paid out than in.
Please show some numbers with your argument that include these facts if you want to argue about the benefits versus payments in the Social Security system.
Yes, you have to love the strings attached to US Social Security.
As it happens, I just received my yearly Social Security statement. According to my "earnings record" my total Social Security "taxes" paid as of 2008 are $95,397 by me, and $95,397 by my employer, for a total of $190,794 over the many many years I've been contributing. A nice chunk of change. Furthermore, they tease me by pointing out that at age 62 I will receive $1,718/month in benefits if I stop working. If I become disabled right now I would even get $2,418/month in benefits. However, the first string attached is this disclaimer:
"*Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of scheduled benefits."
The hidden string is even better. The comment was made that "Its not a charity, it's a government benefit." But that is not exactly right either. A substantial amount of money has been put *into* the SS system on my behalf, almost $200,000. If I had that much in cash and invested it at a reasonable (about 8% tax free) rate of return, I could expect about $1M in cash by my retirement (and that assumes I stop paying in right now, and ignores any growth in capital that should have occurred over the previous years as I was making contributions). Based on a 4%/year withdrawal (a rate that should allow the base capital to grow so that inflation does not destroy the "real" value of the yearly withdrawal) I could expect $40,000/year in today's dollars almost in perpetuity, no matter how long I live (it would adjust for inflation like SS benefits are supposed to do as the base capital grows). That $40,000/year is over $3,000/month, instead of the $1,718/month that the government says I *might* receive, unless of course Congress changes the law.
So its not exactly a benefit. I'm not even going to get out the value that I put in *before* the changes that will be made due to the under-collection of payroll taxes estimated at 78% by 2041.
Having said that, there are others for whom they will get out far more than they have put in. I have worked hard, and have been fortunate, so I have managed a greater level of income than average, and the US Social Security system tends to flatten out future payments rather than increase them in proportion to higher incomes. But all of the strings are the same, as no matter what you have put in or what you expect to get out today, your payment tomorrow can be changed at the whim of Congress.
Right... The first thing to realize is that there is no such thing as identity. It doesn't exist. There is no one thing that identifies anyone, except maybe some complete bio-scan DNA/skeletal/fingerprint/retina identity matrix.
A US Social Security Number (SSN) exists primarily to represent a relationship between income (and attendant Social Security contributions) and the eventual distribution of Social Security payments. Ideally the payments go to the single individual who made the income in the first place, but there is no guarantee.
The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decided that if the Social Security Administration was going to use a single number to track income/contributions and then eventual payments, they should too... So the US SSN identifies another set of relationships involving income, withholding, and tax debt settlement. Once again, ideally all for the same individual, but who knows?
In a smaller, less mobile society than the modern US it may be possible to have a fixed "identity" for an individual, as the son of their parents, as their relation to their relatives, etc. Even then there are ways to leave that identity behind and create a new one, especially if a geographical re-location is used. But in a highly mobile, populous society - just what identity is being tracked? Theoretically, an individuals claim of name, birth-date, birthplace, and mother's maiden name serve as a proxy to identify that person with respect to the beginnings. But the details can be faked and records must be relied upon rather than direct human observation over the years, so its easier to assume alternative "identities."
So ultimately, there is no identity, only relationships. So should there be one number used in all relationships as the master primary key? Lots of room for misuse there. But using many primary keys, each one for a different relationship, has its own set of misuses. But as long as people think that an SSN, or a name/claimed birth-date/claimed birth-place, or any other combination really *identifies* a person, we will continue to have problems like this.
Sure, the VA does a great job. My father died of pancreatic cancer because they kept delaying and delaying testing, then after they did the testing they delayed processing the results, and by the time they finally realized he had cancer and opened him up, it was too late. They just closed him back up and told him sorry.
No, I'm not a troll, this really happened. He started having problems in Sept. of 1999, the VA finally ran some tests for cancer in January of 2000, they operated in May of 2000, and he was dead in September 2000. Sure, pancreatic cancer can be tough to beat, and he might have died anyway, but the absolutely abysmal treatment he received pretty much guaranteed that he would die. No, I don't want government run healthcare if its anything like the VA. Some VA hospitals are great, others are crap. The care you get is very hit and miss.
It would be nice of all of the proponents of "fixing" the US healthcare system would start by clearly defining the problem. I suspect that if you interviewed 100 people, you would get at least 10 different ideas of what the *problem* is, never mind the solution. Yet we are being told we should be jumping at the as yet undescribed health care "plan" currently being shoved down our throats. Just ask to see the outline of the plan even; I don't believe that it exists. Just how there can be a legislative action based on a non-existent plan baffles me. I read the contracts that I sign; I expect the details of a healthcare plan to be available for review by all citizens *before* the bill putting the plan into law is passed by Congress.
The Association of Science and Technology Centers (http://www.astc.org/members/passlist.htm) has a "passport" program that lets you leverage your membership in one museum to go to many others.
I live in Maryland these days and am sometimes a member of the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the ASTC passport program got me free admission into the Boston Museum of Science (a waaaaaaaay better science museum) while I was back home visiting my folks.
I believe that you can thank the FDIC "Know your customer" program for the hassle to which you refer. Prior to the 2001-09-11 destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, attempts to put the "Know your customer" program in place were being soundly rejected by the banks due to their effects on privacy. This program, by requiring all banks to somehow "know" everyone with whom they do business, and to report to the government any "suspicious" or "unusual" activity, acts to get information in to the government that would otherwise be inaccessible due to the need to have probable cause before issuing a search warrant. After the event I mentioned earlier, these programs where whisked into place. So cashing checks at a bank where you don't have an account, even when it is the bank upon which that check is drawn, is now very difficult because that bank has to somehow "know" you (i.e., by taking your thumbprint in this case).
Another example of this post-9/11 risk avoidance is a hesitancy to deal in cash at some financial institutions. Schwab refused to take a cash deposit from me of approx. $10K into my CMA account at one of their offices. I believe it was because they didn't want the risk of being responsible for that amount of "untraceable" value entering the system. I had to deposit the cash into my bank account, then transfer it to Schwab. If I turned out to be a Bad Person (tm) then Schwab could just point the investigators over to the bank, and it would be the bank's problem that they accepted such a large amount of an untraceable currency... Perhaps the presumption is that my bank could know me better somehow than Schwab could.
Where do the people come from who want the government to step in and force everyone else to do what they think is a good idea, just because they think it is a good idea?
If enough people don't like checks, and enough people stop using them, they may eventually go away. Until then, if enough people like using them that they continue to use them, just why should the government step in and abolish them?
If I'm reacting inappropriately to a sarcastic comment, please ignore what I just said.
Right. And the use of "Social Security Numbers" (SSN) in the United States of America isn't a critical failure. Try telling that to the numerous folks who are the victims of (tragically misnamed) "Identity Theft." "Its just a unique ID. The hurdles are so many the odds of winning the lottery are better than doing something useful with the unique ID."
The more that the underpinnings of society are based on using these friendly easy-to-read unique IDs, the more opportunity there will be for those who wish to misuse those same IDs.
Slight correction. It is fairly easy to go out and purchase a shotgun that you leave at home in many places in the United States of America. No license is required. This is true for long guns, including shotguns with barrel lengths of 18" or more. In many states, no permit or license is required for a handgun, either, as long as it is not carried concealed on your person or in your vehicle. And in over half of the states, the government is required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies, as long as they meet basic requirements such as age and lack of criminal behavior.
Massachusetts is one of the more restrictive states. I believe that the state government leaves the determination as to need (for a concealed carry permit) up to the city/town chief of police. If that is true, your friend's dad has his local police department to thank for their promise to always protect him so that he doesn't have to do so himself. (This is a slightly snarky comment, because the lawyers for those same police will be the first to point out that the police specifically *do not* have a legal duty to protect *any* individual citizen if the occasion arises.)
Folks who get themselves all worked up over how much bloodshed will result if ordinary people have access to firearms should consider the fact that most folks in the United States already have ready access to firearms if they choose...
One approach to this news would be a knee-jerk "this can't possibly be true" reaction based on exposure to a small sample size (of possibly one, subjective.
I trust that some of the more educated readers of slashdot will consider the scientific evidence presented and that a higher level discussion will ensue.
I certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US. I have to start from somewhere to lay a foundation of right versus wrong. Having been raised in the US, I have drunk the kool-aid of the colonists fighting against their oppressive mother country, forming a "more perfect union," and laying down the basis for future government in a document we call the "Constitution." This bedrock document created a social compact which the then 13 colonies agreed to follow. I can tell when this compact is violated, because I can read it and understand it.
Other countries have their own forms of government, and their own beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. Many are similar to, but not the same as, the US beliefs. It would be arrogant of me to assume that everyone wants a government just like the US. Trying to understand some concept of "universal" rights given nationalistic differences is difficult for me.
Something that presents an especially thorny problem is how to deal with is operations against my country undertaken by individuals acting not as agents of a foreign government, but as part of a virtual community. We know how to handle "prisoners of war" (conceptually), how to tell when hostilities are over (usually), and how to repatriate citizens to their homeland. But terrorists don't easily fit into either of the two models for dealing with violent acts: its not exactly war (with another country) and its not exactly a typical law enforcement situation.
So, for me, the focus arises probably because I'm trying to find a problem with rules I understand, some minimal basis for determining "yes this is right" and "no that is wrong." I know that a US citizen is part of the social compact that I believe all US citizens operate under. And since I understand that social compact, especially the bedrock guarantees that are in it, I can argue it.
So I didn't answer your question about how I would feel if this guy had not been a US citizen, because I don't know how I feel. I don't have any idea how we should treat violent individuals who wish to kill thousands of my countrymen, and who would kill me without thinking twice, yet who aren't of my country.
I'm sure my comments will provoke a lot of discussion, because I'm making them without thinking through all of the possible interpretations and possible outcomes, and have probably stated my concerns and thoughts rather poorly. But there it is.
We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed... I'm more conservative than liberal, I voted for Bush both times, but I am not a fan of ignoring the foundation of American government, the Constitution of the United States of America. The Bush administration vastly overstepped the powers given to the Executive Branch of the federal government in the Constitution.
I have never understood the theory behind the "lock in" claim you espouse here. I bought an iPod 3 years ago. I use iTunes the application, but not the iTunes Music Store (except for its Podcast directory capability). iTunes the application makes it easy to manage the music and podcasts on my iPod. All of my "soft" music is in MP3 format, easily transferrable to any other music player. It has to be, because I also have a SLIMP3 attached to my stereo in the living room. My Mac streams music off the Internet or from iTunes to the SLIMP3 so I can listen to it in my house. My iPod supplies the tunes in my car and other places I go. I'm not locked in.
Now if you want to limit your claim of "lock-in" to soft music bought via the iTunes Music Store, then I understand the complaint. Although you can burn it out as a WAV then rip it back, its not straightforward or very time efficient. So, there is a lock-in for the music bought that way. But that is not a closed iPod/iTunes lock-in, its a closed iTunes Music Store/apple music format lock-in. Rather different, to me anyway.
No, I don't think that a satellite navigation aid will destroy local knowledge.
In my local area, I only occasionally use my non-built-in GPS-based navigator tool. When I do use it, it adds to my store of local knowledge. It has occasionally taught me a new connection between two places that I otherwise would not recognize. For those of us who are "good" at finding our way around an area in which we spend a lot of time, it enhances local knowledge, not erases it.
I suspect that for those who never would have been good at finding their way around an area even though they spend a lot of time there, it will be a boon (most of the time) because it will give them a capability they didn't have on their own. It may, to a certain extent, become a crutch that keeps them from achieving a slightly higher level of unaided navigational skill through practise. But I bet most will accept this tradeoff.
For areas in which I am not familiar, and which I will be in only briefly, it saves me from having to spend 15 minutes studying a map to get from point A to point B, and it saves me from well-meaning but ultimately inaccurate directions given by folks who have local knowledge but can't accurately recall *all* of the turns/landmarks that I will need as an outsider without local knowledge.
For me, ultimately, it is a navigational aid. I still have my hardcopy maps, and on long trips I take MapQuest/GoogleMaps-planned routes with me. The sat-nav is exceptionally useful in telling me *quickly* exactly where I am, how far it is to my destination, etc. Best of all, however, are the millions of POI in the sat-nav... gas stations and food being the most useful. All taken with a grain of salt, of course, because the data is partially out of date even before I get it loaded, and after a year or two has gone by not every POI listed is still going to be there.
There is no way I would ever have "local knowledge" of these routes and locations since I am but briefly "local" to them.
2. Control inputs necessary to maintain stable flight begin to vary significantly from normal parameters; not yet out of design parameters, but the rate at which they are varying is troubling
3. Human pilot thinks "Its bad already, and according to the weather I can see up ahead, and the general trends in this area, and the reports I read before beginning the flight, I don't think its worth the risk of continuing on this flight path."
4. Human pilot diverts out of the area.
I don't know if this is realistic or not, but the computer on the aircraft is not capable of a higher-order analysis of all data, such as weather reports, observed conditions, etc. *and* including the rate/severity at which control inputs are being adjusted in order to maintain stable flight. The computer just keeps compensating, perhaps setting off an alarm. If the pilots don't realize just how crazy things have gotten until the computer cries uncle, the situation may be unrecoverable.
If this proves to have been the case with this crash, the problem won't have been strictly with the computers, or the aircraft, or the pilots, although all may have contributed. It will be an advancement of meta-analysis regarding the use of those types of flight systems in those flight conditions that will be used to avoid future incidences.
Most of the reports that I have seen in the US are pretty clear that H1N1 Type A is no more virulent than the seasonal flu, and no more likely to cause death in the US cases. This was clear from all public reports in the US very early on. There was some difficulty in analysis because the Mexican cases appeared to indicate a much more virulent disease; I suspect that the post-game analysis will show other factors were at work including nutritional status of patients, other illnesses, etc.
The much over-hyped "pandemic" status merely indicates the scope of infection, not the potential death toll.
Cory -
If a student is going to be spending most of their working life repaying their college loans, they made a bad choice of college. Perhaps we need a bigger emphasis on economics while the student is in high school.
Slashdot Mirror
My e-mail to the school principal did request that they try to put all documents to be downloaded/printed by parents in PDF format. Many of the documents that the school system distributes are in PDF format, this one was not. Having the documents easily readable for a variety of home users is especially important because the school is moving towards a more-or-less paperless information publishing model. I wholly support that model. Anyone who has seen the volume of paper that a school system can generate in notices from the school and teachers to the parents can appreciate the savings it would provide.
I think it would be a bit easier to get the school system to always provide PDF if Windows included a "print to PDF" function like Mac OS X has (Windows is still missing this, isn't it?) I know that I use it all the time to save copies of web site pages such as electronic receipts for on-line purchases. If it were just a local school system that I was dealing with, I would try to help them get some free or low-cost software to add this functionality. However, we have a county-wide school system with 120,000 students and the IT department isn't very accessible and doesn't like any local interference with the centrally-managed configuration (which isn't surprising).
or not... I have a Macintosh computer, not Windows. However, you did inspire me to make another check of the Microsoft web site for a patch to the Mac version of Word. Instead of a patch, I found the "Open XML File Format Converter for Mac 1.1.1." I downloaded and installed it, and it did the job - it converted the school's ".docx" file into a .doc and automatically ran Word to open the .doc, which I can then save, edit, whatever.
I wasn't trying to be a troll, I was just being a bit thick. In my defense, I have lived through several generations of MS Office applications that *did* encourage upgrades in larger user communities by changing the default internal format of the ".doc" file in newer versions. The longer-term customer care that we now enjoy was won due to lots of complaints in the past.
Incidentally, I had looked for an Open XML update for my version of Word when I first encountered a ".docx" file, and hadn't found one. The separate converter does the job, though, so I withdraw my complaint.
Thanks for the inspiration.
Sure... just this month I went to my school system's web site to download the "back to school" supply lists for my kids. I downloaded the list, but couldn't open the file because it was in Microsoft's latest and greatest format -Office Open XML. My perfectly adequate copy of Microsoft Word couldn't open it... my "Open Office" suite could open it, but it sure wasn't formatted on my screen/printer the way the original author viewed it.
So, I can either try to convince the school admins to save in the old ".doc" format, or I can upgrade my perfectly functional copy of Office to the latest and greatest. Which do you think I'll have more success at doing?
Isn't that exactly why we have the concept of "sin"? What is a sin other than an action that benefits the individual at the expense of society?
I could go around stealing from my neighbor's houses while they are at work, and I would simply be maximizing the socio-economic status of my family. I almost have a duty to do that, don' t I?
I think the concept of defining "sins" applicable on the world of IT is interesting. Surely tilting the outcome of a standards body isn't in the best interests of society. Surely "embracing and extending" standards to create platform lock-in isn't in the best interests of society. Surely teaching plainly incorrect information to those who don't know better (my favorite - Q: What was the first multi-tasking multi-user operating system? A: Microsoft Windows NT) isn't in the best interests of society. Aren't these things "sins" or is it every person for themselves, only the strong survive?
I would hope that these sins aren't just used to thrash Microsoft, however. Perhaps they can lay the philosophical groundwork for a sense of overall ethics in operating system and software development and deployment. Then, instead of a vague sense of unease as an unscrupulous individual or firm "maximizes their own status" at the expense of society, we would have a clear understanding of why their actions were wrong.
I like to bring up a little item called "equally-informed consent." If two people of like age and maturity engage in sexual play, equally-informed consent is present. But if a much older person engages in sexual play with a younger person, esp. one not long past puberty, then equally-informed consent is not present. Without equally informed consent the probability that damage will occur is very high. If you factor in how society will react to both parties, the possibility of damage is even higher. I guess if you think its ok for con artists to rip-off old people by playing on their weaknesses and fears, then you wouldn't have any problem with a sexually experienced mature individual having their way with a sexually inexperienced and immature person.
The same standard can be applied with respect to mental capacity wherein a person who is older in age but has a reduced mental capacity would not be an appropriate sexual partner for a person of the same age with normal mental capacity.
Bingo! A US SSN is exactly like the keys to the castle for a would-be "identify theft" perpetrator. If the laws were changed to make the burden of proof on the business that gave out goods, services, or cash to prove that the person that they gave them out to was the same person that they were trying to collect from, I think that "identity theft" would disappear. The "I made a bad loan" crime isn't nearly as sexy.
When you file your US Federal tax return, you need to have social security numbers for the children you claim as dependents. So... I guess you don't have to get your children SSNs, but then you can't claim the deduction for them. Later on, however, they will need to have an SSN so that the FICA "taxes" taken out of their pay can be attributed to their earnings record at the Social Security Administration.
If Social Security is a tax, why isn't the amount paid into the Social Security fund deductible from my gross income for federal and state tax calculations? In general, most taxes paid are deductible from income. Unless I've made a mistake, Social Security payments that you make are not deducted from your gross income when calculating income tax. Social Security is administered as a separate program from the general US federal tax program, and I believe that it is meant to represent a compact between workers and the government whereby you get paid money out based on what you paid in, not based on your need or worthiness of government largess after you retire.
I already covered in an earlier comment the calculation showing that I will not receive as much in benefits as I have added in value to the Social Security system. I don't mind this necessarily, but it is not true to claim that everyone gets out more than they put in; they don't. Especially when you account for the expected growth in principle that should occur. The IRS doesn't even let you loan family members money without assuming you receive interest income on the loan, so the Social Security program shouldn't be reviewed as if years of contributions don't have any principle growth *and* changes in the value of the underlying monetary unit, both of which could eliminate any "on paper" claim of a greater amount paid out than in.
Please show some numbers with your argument that include these facts if you want to argue about the benefits versus payments in the Social Security system.
Yes, you have to love the strings attached to US Social Security.
As it happens, I just received my yearly Social Security statement. According to my "earnings record" my total Social Security "taxes" paid as of 2008 are $95,397 by me, and $95,397 by my employer, for a total of $190,794 over the many many years I've been contributing. A nice chunk of change. Furthermore, they tease me by pointing out that at age 62 I will receive $1,718/month in benefits if I stop working. If I become disabled right now I would even get $2,418/month in benefits. However, the first string attached is this disclaimer:
"*Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of scheduled benefits."
The hidden string is even better. The comment was made that "Its not a charity, it's a government benefit." But that is not exactly right either. A substantial amount of money has been put *into* the SS system on my behalf, almost $200,000. If I had that much in cash and invested it at a reasonable (about 8% tax free) rate of return, I could expect about $1M in cash by my retirement (and that assumes I stop paying in right now, and ignores any growth in capital that should have occurred over the previous years as I was making contributions). Based on a 4%/year withdrawal (a rate that should allow the base capital to grow so that inflation does not destroy the "real" value of the yearly withdrawal) I could expect $40,000/year in today's dollars almost in perpetuity, no matter how long I live (it would adjust for inflation like SS benefits are supposed to do as the base capital grows). That $40,000/year is over $3,000/month, instead of the $1,718/month that the government says I *might* receive, unless of course Congress changes the law.
So its not exactly a benefit. I'm not even going to get out the value that I put in *before* the changes that will be made due to the under-collection of payroll taxes estimated at 78% by 2041.
Having said that, there are others for whom they will get out far more than they have put in. I have worked hard, and have been fortunate, so I have managed a greater level of income than average, and the US Social Security system tends to flatten out future payments rather than increase them in proportion to higher incomes. But all of the strings are the same, as no matter what you have put in or what you expect to get out today, your payment tomorrow can be changed at the whim of Congress.
A US Social Security Number (SSN) exists primarily to represent a relationship between income (and attendant Social Security contributions) and the eventual distribution of Social Security payments. Ideally the payments go to the single individual who made the income in the first place, but there is no guarantee.
The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decided that if the Social Security Administration was going to use a single number to track income/contributions and then eventual payments, they should too... So the US SSN identifies another set of relationships involving income, withholding, and tax debt settlement. Once again, ideally all for the same individual, but who knows?
In a smaller, less mobile society than the modern US it may be possible to have a fixed "identity" for an individual, as the son of their parents, as their relation to their relatives, etc. Even then there are ways to leave that identity behind and create a new one, especially if a geographical re-location is used. But in a highly mobile, populous society - just what identity is being tracked? Theoretically, an individuals claim of name, birth-date, birthplace, and mother's maiden name serve as a proxy to identify that person with respect to the beginnings. But the details can be faked and records must be relied upon rather than direct human observation over the years, so its easier to assume alternative "identities."
So ultimately, there is no identity, only relationships. So should there be one number used in all relationships as the master primary key? Lots of room for misuse there. But using many primary keys, each one for a different relationship, has its own set of misuses. But as long as people think that an SSN, or a name/claimed birth-date/claimed birth-place, or any other combination really *identifies* a person, we will continue to have problems like this.
Sure, the VA does a great job. My father died of pancreatic cancer because they kept delaying and delaying testing, then after they did the testing they delayed processing the results, and by the time they finally realized he had cancer and opened him up, it was too late. They just closed him back up and told him sorry.
No, I'm not a troll, this really happened. He started having problems in Sept. of 1999, the VA finally ran some tests for cancer in January of 2000, they operated in May of 2000, and he was dead in September 2000. Sure, pancreatic cancer can be tough to beat, and he might have died anyway, but the absolutely abysmal treatment he received pretty much guaranteed that he would die. No, I don't want government run healthcare if its anything like the VA. Some VA hospitals are great, others are crap. The care you get is very hit and miss.
It would be nice of all of the proponents of "fixing" the US healthcare system would start by clearly defining the problem. I suspect that if you interviewed 100 people, you would get at least 10 different ideas of what the *problem* is, never mind the solution. Yet we are being told we should be jumping at the as yet undescribed health care "plan" currently being shoved down our throats. Just ask to see the outline of the plan even; I don't believe that it exists. Just how there can be a legislative action based on a non-existent plan baffles me. I read the contracts that I sign; I expect the details of a healthcare plan to be available for review by all citizens *before* the bill putting the plan into law is passed by Congress.
The Association of Science and Technology Centers (http://www.astc.org/members/passlist.htm) has a "passport" program that lets you leverage your membership in one museum to go to many others.
I live in Maryland these days and am sometimes a member of the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the ASTC passport program got me free admission into the Boston Museum of Science (a waaaaaaaay better science museum) while I was back home visiting my folks.
Another example of this post-9/11 risk avoidance is a hesitancy to deal in cash at some financial institutions. Schwab refused to take a cash deposit from me of approx. $10K into my CMA account at one of their offices. I believe it was because they didn't want the risk of being responsible for that amount of "untraceable" value entering the system. I had to deposit the cash into my bank account, then transfer it to Schwab. If I turned out to be a Bad Person (tm) then Schwab could just point the investigators over to the bank, and it would be the bank's problem that they accepted such a large amount of an untraceable currency... Perhaps the presumption is that my bank could know me better somehow than Schwab could.
Where do the people come from who want the government to step in and force everyone else to do what they think is a good idea, just because they think it is a good idea?
If enough people don't like checks, and enough people stop using them, they may eventually go away. Until then, if enough people like using them that they continue to use them, just why should the government step in and abolish them?
If I'm reacting inappropriately to a sarcastic comment, please ignore what I just said.
Right. And the use of "Social Security Numbers" (SSN) in the United States of America isn't a critical failure. Try telling that to the numerous folks who are the victims of (tragically misnamed) "Identity Theft." "Its just a unique ID. The hurdles are so many the odds of winning the lottery are better than doing something useful with the unique ID."
The more that the underpinnings of society are based on using these friendly easy-to-read unique IDs, the more opportunity there will be for those who wish to misuse those same IDs.
Slight correction. It is fairly easy to go out and purchase a shotgun that you leave at home in many places in the United States of America. No license is required. This is true for long guns, including shotguns with barrel lengths of 18" or more. In many states, no permit or license is required for a handgun, either, as long as it is not carried concealed on your person or in your vehicle. And in over half of the states, the government is required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies, as long as they meet basic requirements such as age and lack of criminal behavior.
Massachusetts is one of the more restrictive states. I believe that the state government leaves the determination as to need (for a concealed carry permit) up to the city/town chief of police. If that is true, your friend's dad has his local police department to thank for their promise to always protect him so that he doesn't have to do so himself. (This is a slightly snarky comment, because the lawyers for those same police will be the first to point out that the police specifically *do not* have a legal duty to protect *any* individual citizen if the occasion arises.)
Folks who get themselves all worked up over how much bloodshed will result if ordinary people have access to firearms should consider the fact that most folks in the United States already have ready access to firearms if they choose...
One approach to this news would be a knee-jerk "this can't possibly be true" reaction based on exposure to a small sample size (of possibly one, subjective.
I trust that some of the more educated readers of slashdot will consider the scientific evidence presented and that a higher level discussion will ensue.
I certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US. I have to start from somewhere to lay a foundation of right versus wrong. Having been raised in the US, I have drunk the kool-aid of the colonists fighting against their oppressive mother country, forming a "more perfect union," and laying down the basis for future government in a document we call the "Constitution." This bedrock document created a social compact which the then 13 colonies agreed to follow. I can tell when this compact is violated, because I can read it and understand it.
Other countries have their own forms of government, and their own beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. Many are similar to, but not the same as, the US beliefs. It would be arrogant of me to assume that everyone wants a government just like the US. Trying to understand some concept of "universal" rights given nationalistic differences is difficult for me.
Something that presents an especially thorny problem is how to deal with is operations against my country undertaken by individuals acting not as agents of a foreign government, but as part of a virtual community. We know how to handle "prisoners of war" (conceptually), how to tell when hostilities are over (usually), and how to repatriate citizens to their homeland. But terrorists don't easily fit into either of the two models for dealing with violent acts: its not exactly war (with another country) and its not exactly a typical law enforcement situation.
So, for me, the focus arises probably because I'm trying to find a problem with rules I understand, some minimal basis for determining "yes this is right" and "no that is wrong." I know that a US citizen is part of the social compact that I believe all US citizens operate under. And since I understand that social compact, especially the bedrock guarantees that are in it, I can argue it.
So I didn't answer your question about how I would feel if this guy had not been a US citizen, because I don't know how I feel. I don't have any idea how we should treat violent individuals who wish to kill thousands of my countrymen, and who would kill me without thinking twice, yet who aren't of my country.
I'm sure my comments will provoke a lot of discussion, because I'm making them without thinking through all of the possible interpretations and possible outcomes, and have probably stated my concerns and thoughts rather poorly. But there it is.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)" This was an American citizen grabbed off the street and "disappeared."
We know all about this guy *now*, but we didn't when he was first grabbed... I'm more conservative than liberal, I voted for Bush both times, but I am not a fan of ignoring the foundation of American government, the Constitution of the United States of America. The Bush administration vastly overstepped the powers given to the Executive Branch of the federal government in the Constitution.
Offtopic: I really liked watching Wilford Brimley's character get the crap kicked out of him by Tom Cruise's character in "The Firm."
I have never understood the theory behind the "lock in" claim you espouse here. I bought an iPod 3 years ago. I use iTunes the application, but not the iTunes Music Store (except for its Podcast directory capability). iTunes the application makes it easy to manage the music and podcasts on my iPod. All of my "soft" music is in MP3 format, easily transferrable to any other music player. It has to be, because I also have a SLIMP3 attached to my stereo in the living room. My Mac streams music off the Internet or from iTunes to the SLIMP3 so I can listen to it in my house. My iPod supplies the tunes in my car and other places I go. I'm not locked in.
Now if you want to limit your claim of "lock-in" to soft music bought via the iTunes Music Store, then I understand the complaint. Although you can burn it out as a WAV then rip it back, its not straightforward or very time efficient. So, there is a lock-in for the music bought that way. But that is not a closed iPod/iTunes lock-in, its a closed iTunes Music Store/apple music format lock-in. Rather different, to me anyway.
No, I don't think that a satellite navigation aid will destroy local knowledge.
In my local area, I only occasionally use my non-built-in GPS-based navigator tool. When I do use it, it adds to my store of local knowledge. It has occasionally taught me a new connection between two places that I otherwise would not recognize. For those of us who are "good" at finding our way around an area in which we spend a lot of time, it enhances local knowledge, not erases it.
I suspect that for those who never would have been good at finding their way around an area even though they spend a lot of time there, it will be a boon (most of the time) because it will give them a capability they didn't have on their own. It may, to a certain extent, become a crutch that keeps them from achieving a slightly higher level of unaided navigational skill through practise. But I bet most will accept this tradeoff.
For areas in which I am not familiar, and which I will be in only briefly, it saves me from having to spend 15 minutes studying a map to get from point A to point B, and it saves me from well-meaning but ultimately inaccurate directions given by folks who have local knowledge but can't accurately recall *all* of the turns/landmarks that I will need as an outsider without local knowledge.
For me, ultimately, it is a navigational aid. I still have my hardcopy maps, and on long trips I take MapQuest/GoogleMaps-planned routes with me. The sat-nav is exceptionally useful in telling me *quickly* exactly where I am, how far it is to my destination, etc. Best of all, however, are the millions of POI in the sat-nav... gas stations and food being the most useful. All taken with a grain of salt, of course, because the data is partially out of date even before I get it loaded, and after a year or two has gone by not every POI listed is still going to be there.
There is no way I would ever have "local knowledge" of these routes and locations since I am but briefly "local" to them.
How about this?
1. Human pilot in control
2. Control inputs necessary to maintain stable flight begin to vary significantly from normal parameters; not yet out of design parameters, but the rate at which they are varying is troubling
3. Human pilot thinks "Its bad already, and according to the weather I can see up ahead, and the general trends in this area, and the reports I read before beginning the flight, I don't think its worth the risk of continuing on this flight path."
4. Human pilot diverts out of the area.
I don't know if this is realistic or not, but the computer on the aircraft is not capable of a higher-order analysis of all data, such as weather reports, observed conditions, etc. *and* including the rate/severity at which control inputs are being adjusted in order to maintain stable flight. The computer just keeps compensating, perhaps setting off an alarm. If the pilots don't realize just how crazy things have gotten until the computer cries uncle, the situation may be unrecoverable.
If this proves to have been the case with this crash, the problem won't have been strictly with the computers, or the aircraft, or the pilots, although all may have contributed. It will be an advancement of meta-analysis regarding the use of those types of flight systems in those flight conditions that will be used to avoid future incidences.
H1N1 Type A is "much nastier" than what?
Most of the reports that I have seen in the US are pretty clear that H1N1 Type A is no more virulent than the seasonal flu, and no more likely to cause death in the US cases. This was clear from all public reports in the US very early on. There was some difficulty in analysis because the Mexican cases appeared to indicate a much more virulent disease; I suspect that the post-game analysis will show other factors were at work including nutritional status of patients, other illnesses, etc.
The much over-hyped "pandemic" status merely indicates the scope of infection, not the potential death toll.
Cory - If a student is going to be spending most of their working life repaying their college loans, they made a bad choice of college. Perhaps we need a bigger emphasis on economics while the student is in high school.