"It looks like you're selling out your last few moral principles, in order to make a shitload of money from an oppressive totalitarian regime.
Would you like some assistance?"
do you honestly think creating a centralised database of every member of the population is a good idea?
I think its an ethically neutral idea. The "morality" of a database is irrelevant compared to the morality of what is done with the data. The suggestion that supporting an ID card means I support extraordinary rendition and detention without trial is utterly preposterous and, to be frank, actually quite insulting.
What real advantages will it provide?
If the only thing it does is halve fraudulent benefit claimants, it'll pay for itself in no time.
In short, as the consumer has already committed to the choice, the provider is leveraging the committment. So, why doesn't the consumer make a different choice? Cos' I really doubt if the provider can directly stop the consumer from making a different choice.
Because no-one can afford to be the first person to break away from a monopoly. If you're the first to choose an incompatible system, it puts you at a massive disadvantage, because everyone else has standardised on SMB, Word, Excel and Exchange. Companies can't afford to ask their suppliers and customers to bend over backwards for them, just because the, and no-one can offer 100% compatibile products because the standards are secret, propreitory, obscure or just inaccurate.
Biometric is such a scare word : all it means is "recognizing someone from a physical characteristic".
A fingerprint is a biometrics identifier, as is eye and hair colour, list of distinguishing marks and, yes, a photograph. To the extent that they carry some or all of the above, your passport is already a biometric form of identification. And given that your photo was scanned and stored on a computer, you're already in a biometric database.
So, tell me again why I need to be scared of the nasty biometric boogeyman?
I may trust the current government not to be too egregiously abusive of this card and the leverage it provides over the citizens (incompetence is a different story), but it's creating the sort of infrastructure on which an abusive totalitarian government thrives.
Right. A totalitarian government would never think of introducing the infrastructure and then abuse it.
The lack of such an infrastructure would leave them totally helpless! Good thinking!
Tell me, are you also against a standing army and well-maintained roads, because of the oppressive use a totalitarian government might put them to?
Well, you may be a wealthy young man, but to me, paying $10,000 dollars a year counts as being mortgaged into penury. It's actually *more* expensive, on average, to take out insurance than to pay-as-you-go through the healthcare system. Indeed, that's why insurance companies make a profit.
The reason people take out insurance is as a safeguard against being among the tiny minority requiring really expensive medical care. A known cost versus the uncertainty of an unknown, and the possibility of a crippling cost.
Alternatively you can always cross your fingers and hope you stay well.
And be honest, why didn't acknowledge (again) that you overstated your position and misread your own link?
Family private health insurance costs, on average, $10,000 per year. Your employer pays some, you pay some, but thats what it costs. That's not a downpayment on a car, its brand new car, every two years.
Right. But the employer isn't paying out of the goodness of their hearts, you know. To the employer, it's just another part of your remuneration package.
In other words, if the employer weren't paying that money direct to the insurer, all other things being equal, it'd be coming to you.
Since being laid off from his tech writing job in January 2002, Moran has paid for just about everything, such as health insurance, college tuition for his son and basics like groceries and gasoline, with the home equity line.
I won't draw your attention to any particular item.
Really? I'd have thought it was readily apparent that making that stuff up is exactly what Brown did. You don't think he actually asked someone knowledgeable do you?:)
ID cards? Yes, people are up in arms, but no-one blames the French. They blame Tony Blair (and rightly so, as he's the one pushing it). Funnily enough, almost no-one complained when photo driving licenses were introduced.
Well, its pretty hard to leave the country without entering another one (unless you want to spend the rest of your life in international waters) so that's a distinction without a difference.
We much prefer the American system, where if you get sick, the choice is i) mortgage yourself in penury ii) or die.
The funny thing is, can you imagine if passports were a new idea? Just think of the outraged slashdotters that would vent their fury on a scaremongering story entitled "New Compulsory Photo ID required just to leave the country".
Or Driving Licenses: "New Compulsory Photo ID required just to operate vehicles!"
And from the great furnaces that he would light, this latter day Vulcan would forge a new American steel corporation named Nucor.
There's only one problem with this little morality tale. Nucor don't make steel. They recycle steel. That's a useful industry, but its a lie to suggest that Nucor succeeded where US Steel couldn't -- in the manufacture of steel from iron ore.
an increasing pain for users of other Latin-scripted languages
You're right about non-Latin characters, but Latin text is pretty straightforward in LaTeX. Tell it what character set you use (you can pick it from a menu in LyX) and \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
Not exactly intuitive but, very easy every time but the first. (LaTeX isn't intuitive in American English, either.)
I think many buildings that were designed in 1860 look nicer than buildings that were designed in 1960.
But 1860 wasn't in the the early days of architecture. They had a thousand years of history to build on. If slashdot looked like an 1860s building, no-one would mind. The trouble is, it looks like a building built in 1860BC (and I don't mean those few buildings from then that are still standing).
Slashdot Mirror
"It looks like you're selling out your last few moral principles, in order to make a shitload of money from an oppressive totalitarian regime.
Would you like some assistance?"
If I'd have known, I wouldn't have appealed to reason but left you ruminating happily, satisfied that you've picked the right dogma.
That's why monopolies are bad for competition.
Biometric is such a scare word : all it means is "recognizing someone from a physical characteristic".
A fingerprint is a biometrics identifier, as is eye and hair colour, list of distinguishing marks and, yes, a photograph. To the extent that they carry some or all of the above, your passport is already a biometric form of identification. And given that your photo was scanned and stored on a computer, you're already in a biometric database.
So, tell me again why I need to be scared of the nasty biometric boogeyman?
The lack of such an infrastructure would leave them totally helpless! Good thinking!
Tell me, are you also against a standing army and well-maintained roads, because of the oppressive use a totalitarian government might put them to?
Well, you may be a wealthy young man, but to me, paying $10,000 dollars a year counts as being mortgaged into penury. It's actually *more* expensive, on average, to take out insurance than to pay-as-you-go through the healthcare system. Indeed, that's why insurance companies make a profit.
The reason people take out insurance is as a safeguard against being among the tiny minority requiring really expensive medical care. A known cost versus the uncertainty of an unknown, and the possibility of a crippling cost.
Alternatively you can always cross your fingers and hope you stay well.
Really? Photo passports are newer than the invention of the camera?
I'm truly shocked and amazed by your insight and knowledge.
In other words, if the employer weren't paying that money direct to the insurer, all other things being equal, it'd be coming to you.
I don't know about you, but I'd describe $10,000 per year as the equivalent of a mortgage.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/chcm090904nr.cfm
And is that fully comprehensive : would it cover the total cost of care if you (or a loved one) had a serious, long-term illness?
Tell me, what percentage of US consumers are in debt these days?
Oh look, both Mortgage and Credit Card debt levels have reached record levels.Lets look at one of the case studies:I won't draw your attention to any particular item.
ID cards? Yes, people are up in arms, but no-one blames the French. They blame Tony Blair (and rightly so, as he's the one pushing it).
Funnily enough, almost no-one complained when photo driving licenses were introduced.
Well, its pretty hard to leave the country without entering another one (unless you want to spend the rest of your life in international waters) so that's a distinction without a difference.
We much prefer the American system, where if you get sick, the choice is
i) mortgage yourself in penury
ii) or die.
The funny thing is, can you imagine if passports were a new idea? Just think of the outraged slashdotters that would vent their fury on a scaremongering story entitled "New Compulsory Photo ID required just to leave the country".
Or Driving Licenses: "New Compulsory Photo ID required just to operate vehicles!"
Oh, The Huge Manatee!
Not exactly intuitive but, very easy every time but the first. (LaTeX isn't intuitive in American English, either.)