If you didn't have an SS#, you'd have a bundle of other "unique" identifiers.
The problem is not the SS#'s exist, the problem is that everyone adopted it as their own unique identifier. If an SS# only linked you to your Social Security account, it's theft would little harm. Instead, it has become the key to allowing crooks to impersonate you.
California allows residents to put a block on all approvals for credit in their name. Credit isn't issued unless that person is tracked down and approves it.
This ought to be made federal law. It wouldn't eliminate identity theft but it would drastically reduce much of the resulting fraud.
So, how are you planning on changing how the rest of the species has felt for the last several dozen millenia?
Arguing that you're right and everyone else is wrong to be offended by language ignores the reason those words exist in the first place: to be offensive.
Mac and Linux have marketshares that are comparable, i.e., a tiny fraction of the market. OS X on Intel will only be available on Apple hardware. Linux is essentially free and runs on just about any Intel hardware. The cost of moving to a Mac and OS X is at least several gundred dollars. If Linux developers can't produce a free desktop that can compete with something costing hundreds of dollars, then they deserve to lose.
If it was me, I'd opt for the Shuttle-derived designs. Freed of the weight of the Orbiter, it can lift a lot. Do somthing like putting two tanks, or four tanks, together with an appropriate number of solid fuel boosters and SME's and you got something rather nice.
More to the point, I think Griffin is on record, somewhere, as saying that humans should not be risked on missions whose sole intent is to launch cargo. In other words, people should fly only when the mission is to put people into space. The Shuttle's been violating that for yeears.
Once the CEV flies, it will be used for crew transfeer to and from ISS. That's one of the requirements.
The Shuttle can certainly become the basis for a heavy-lift vehicle capable of orbiting hardware and new components for the ISS, but no without modification. Griffin's statement prior to becoming administrator indicate he favors taking this shuttle-derived vehicle approach. (You can strap the payload on the side of the tank where the Orbiter goes today, or you can put it on top of the tank. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.)
Th vehicle that launches the CV to LEO doesn't need to be a heavy lift vehicle. Griffin seems to favor using one of the Shuttle's solid fuel boosters (man-rated and very reliable) with a liquid fuel second stage. The Soyuz flights aren't that expensive an Congress will fund them as necessary until the CEV flies. Griffin doesn't need to pressure them on that. They don't want to take the heat for letting the station go vacant.
I've never been a big fan of ISS. Nothing against space stations, but they need to be there to fulfill a real need. We put truck stops on hightways so truckers can eat and refuel. We didn't stick a truck stop out in the middle of nowhere and claim that people would now build highways and trucks just to go there.
Pay attention. That's been the plan for some time. It's been in all the news, you know.
The CEV will succeed, not replace, the Shuttle. When the CEV flies, the Shuttle stops flying. If ISS construction continues after that, it will need to be with redesigned payloads launched on new vehicles.
Even if the CEV was not in the works, the Shuttle is approaching the date at which the entire system would need to be requalified for flight. That would be very expensive. the Administration has no intention of asking for those funds and Congress has no intention of providing those funds for a vehicle that is considered fundamentally flawed.
Don't lament the future of the Shuttle of the ISS. Both served to justify the existene of the other. Now that NASA has a real mission with real targets, the Shuttle isn't very relevant.
We have as much right to terraform another planet as we do to plant gardens and tend farms here on this planet.
If there is a rule that says it is unethical to change another planet, then it must be equally unethical to change anything on this planet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have every right and every reason to exploit, manage and protect whatever planet we live on to our own advantage. That doesn't mean destroying a planet, but management requires making decisions. Our survival and our expansion as a species is our highest priority.
Forbes' headline contains no quotes or atribution. It's their own words. You may believe the headline incorrectly depicts the thrust of De Raadt's comments, but it is a legitimate headline.
Slashdot, however, by adding the "according to..." phrase, incorrecly and inappropriately linked De Raadt with the "loser" connotation. At best, that's just sloppy. At worst, it unethical deliberate tabloidism.
I once booked into a motel near Fort Worth, late in the evening after driving for hours. Turned out it was across the road from the end of a runway on some Air Force bae (can't recall which one). Someone was uup dpo9ng touch-and-goes all night. So was I.
I don't know the decimal level for the Concorde's take off run (I suppose it exists on the net someplace). However, I lived about 10 miles west of Heathrow. One of the Concorde's patterns on take off took it over my house at an altitude low enough to see that the gear was still down. Some years earlier, I'd lived about 5 miles from the flightline at Wright-Patt, when it still had B-52's stationed there. The loaded 135 tankers made an incredible racket on takeoff, but they couldn't compare with the Concorde. (At the time, I knew a 135 pilot who said the really loud ones were the result of injecting water spray into the combustion process to boost thrust on launch.)
NASA's done some research on reducing sonic booms, but large aircraft can make a lot of other noise. I've lived within the final approach pattern of both a major American Air Force base and Heathrow. The loudest thing the Air Force base put up were fully loaded water-injected KC-135''s. They were plenty loud on take off, louder than C-5's and B-52's and C-141's. Loud enough to obliterate any phone call.
Concorde's leaving Heathrow were an order of magnitude louder.
I'm all for affordable SST's, but the next one really needs to be quieter.
My basic point is that you bought a copy of their hardware. That's what you own: a copy. If they didn't sell you anything else -- specs, docs, the right to make more copies -- then you don't own them. You got a copy and everything else still belongs to the vendor.
Nope, it's their hardware and their specs. They sold you a copy of their hardware. If they wanted to sell you a copy of their specs, they would.
Buying hardware doesn't entitle you to the specs anymore than buying food in a restaurant entitles you to the recipes. Frankly, the only thing we're entitled to is to pay the asking price for whatever someone is selling.
I was actually talking about hardware, but, well, a lot of people, like me, don't want universal spell checking. It's an annoyance. I'd be happy if I could highight any onscreen piece of text, in any program, and submit it to a spellchecker.
For that matter, I'd like to be able to also print that chunk and/or save it or add it to a file. That would be more useful than spellchecking.
It hasn't been technology standing in the way of universal spellchecking. It's been because the industry is competitive and everyone wants to do things their way.
Ummm, there aren't "kajillions" of customers running PPC chips. There's essentially only the tiny sliver of the market running Macs.
And Mac users, at least the one's with incomes, won't run Linux on their PPC Macs. They'll run OS X and Mac software until that dries up, and then they will go out and buy new Macs.
People who are so emotionally attached to their hardware that they feel abandoned and betrayed when the vendor changes chips need to seek therapy.
I certainly hope there nothing we recognize as Windows in 20 years. Or OS X or Linux. Advances in technology and hardware better render today's toys obsolete. or else the IT business is going bust.
I agree that Apple's embrace of Intel poses no threat to Linux, but not for the reasons outlined in the article.
Linux is increasingly driven by ideology and the fact that it can be obtained at no cost. It's merits as a desktop system have improved, but, by and large, it isn't good enough to attract large numbers of people already using Windows or a Mac. It is good enough to not be a dealbreaker for people who are atracted to Linux because they support its underlying ideology or simply don't want to pay for their software.
Could the Linux desktop become to good that it, alone, attracts users? Sure, but it isn't there yet.
>>..."...Everything else on his list are must haves for ALL users."
I agree, but I was talking about what people actually do, not what someone else thinks they ought to do. If the assertion had been about programs users should run, his point would be valid. However, his assertion was about programs that users do run. Wishing for something doesn't make it real.
Who said anything about MS being omnipotent? Who's talking about something being "good or right"? That impliles a moral component for sofftwware, which is impossible.
Forego the hyperbole and get to grips with the fact that I said Microsoft's profits are indicative of their success.
Slashdot Mirror
If you didn't have an SS#, you'd have a bundle of other "unique" identifiers.
The problem is not the SS#'s exist, the problem is that everyone adopted it as their own unique identifier. If an SS# only linked you to your Social Security account, it's theft would little harm. Instead, it has become the key to allowing crooks to impersonate you.
Haven't Minnesotans heard about a continuing resolution?
California allows residents to put a block on all approvals for credit in their name. Credit isn't issued unless that person is tracked down and approves it.
This ought to be made federal law. It wouldn't eliminate identity theft but it would drastically reduce much of the resulting fraud.
>> ...people are oversensitive
So, how are you planning on changing how the rest of the species has felt for the last several dozen millenia?
Arguing that you're right and everyone else is wrong to be offended by language ignores the reason those words exist in the first place: to be offensive.
>> People should feel that they can say anything they want to, at any time.
Well, they don't. Never have. Never will. That's why there are words rational people call obscene and offensive.
Here's some freee advice: Get a clue about how the rest of the human race functions and get down off your prissy little pedestal.
I'm tired of adolescents who who've decided everyone else is immature.
Mac and Linux have marketshares that are comparable, i.e., a tiny fraction of the market. OS X on Intel will only be available on Apple hardware. Linux is essentially free and runs on just about any Intel hardware. The cost of moving to a Mac and OS X is at least several gundred dollars. If Linux developers can't produce a free desktop that can compete with something costing hundreds of dollars, then they deserve to lose.
If it was me, I'd opt for the Shuttle-derived designs. Freed of the weight of the Orbiter, it can lift a lot. Do somthing like putting two tanks, or four tanks, together with an appropriate number of solid fuel boosters and SME's and you got something rather nice.
More to the point, I think Griffin is on record, somewhere, as saying that humans should not be risked on missions whose sole intent is to launch cargo. In other words, people should fly only when the mission is to put people into space. The Shuttle's been violating that for yeears.
Once the CEV flies, it will be used for crew transfeer to and from ISS. That's one of the requirements.
The Shuttle can certainly become the basis for a heavy-lift vehicle capable of orbiting hardware and new components for the ISS, but no without modification. Griffin's statement prior to becoming administrator indicate he favors taking this shuttle-derived vehicle approach. (You can strap the payload on the side of the tank where the Orbiter goes today, or you can put it on top of the tank. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.)
Th vehicle that launches the CV to LEO doesn't need to be a heavy lift vehicle. Griffin seems to favor using one of the Shuttle's solid fuel boosters (man-rated and very reliable) with a liquid fuel second stage. The Soyuz flights aren't that expensive an Congress will fund them as necessary until the CEV flies. Griffin doesn't need to pressure them on that. They don't want to take the heat for letting the station go vacant.
I've never been a big fan of ISS. Nothing against space stations, but they need to be there to fulfill a real need. We put truck stops on hightways so truckers can eat and refuel. We didn't stick a truck stop out in the middle of nowhere and claim that people would now build highways and trucks just to go there.
>> Should the Space Shuttle be cut loose?
Pay attention. That's been the plan for some time. It's been in all the news, you know.
The CEV will succeed, not replace, the Shuttle. When the CEV flies, the Shuttle stops flying. If ISS construction continues after that, it will need to be with redesigned payloads launched on new vehicles.
Even if the CEV was not in the works, the Shuttle is approaching the date at which the entire system would need to be requalified for flight. That would be very expensive. the Administration has no intention of asking for those funds and Congress has no intention of providing those funds for a vehicle that is considered fundamentally flawed.
Don't lament the future of the Shuttle of the ISS. Both served to justify the existene of the other. Now that NASA has a real mission with real targets, the Shuttle isn't very relevant.
We have as much right to terraform another planet as we do to plant gardens and tend farms here on this planet.
If there is a rule that says it is unethical to change another planet, then it must be equally unethical to change anything on this planet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have every right and every reason to exploit, manage and protect whatever planet we live on to our own advantage. That doesn't mean destroying a planet, but management requires making decisions. Our survival and our expansion as a species is our highest priority.
Forbes' headline contains no quotes or atribution. It's their own words. You may believe the headline incorrectly depicts the thrust of De Raadt's comments, but it is a legitimate headline.
Slashdot, however, by adding the "according to..." phrase, incorrecly and inappropriately linked De Raadt with the "loser" connotation. At best, that's just sloppy. At worst, it unethical deliberate tabloidism.
Par for the course, really.
I once booked into a motel near Fort Worth, late in the evening after driving for hours. Turned out it was across the road from the end of a runway on some Air Force bae (can't recall which one). Someone was uup dpo9ng touch-and-goes all night. So was I.
I don't know the decimal level for the Concorde's take off run (I suppose it exists on the net someplace). However, I lived about 10 miles west of Heathrow. One of the Concorde's patterns on take off took it over my house at an altitude low enough to see that the gear was still down. Some years earlier, I'd lived about 5 miles from the flightline at Wright-Patt, when it still had B-52's stationed there. The loaded 135 tankers made an incredible racket on takeoff, but they couldn't compare with the Concorde. (At the time, I knew a 135 pilot who said the really loud ones were the result of injecting water spray into the combustion process to boost thrust on launch.)
NASA's done some research on reducing sonic booms, but large aircraft can make a lot of other noise. I've lived within the final approach pattern of both a major American Air Force base and Heathrow. The loudest thing the Air Force base put up were fully loaded water-injected KC-135''s. They were plenty loud on take off, louder than C-5's and B-52's and C-141's. Loud enough to obliterate any phone call.
Concorde's leaving Heathrow were an order of magnitude louder.
I'm all for affordable SST's, but the next one really needs to be quieter.
My basic point is that you bought a copy of their hardware. That's what you own: a copy. If they didn't sell you anything else -- specs, docs, the right to make more copies -- then you don't own them. You got a copy and everything else still belongs to the vendor.
Nope, it's their hardware and their specs. They sold you a copy of their hardware. If they wanted to sell you a copy of their specs, they would.
Buying hardware doesn't entitle you to the specs anymore than buying food in a restaurant entitles you to the recipes. Frankly, the only thing we're entitled to is to pay the asking price for whatever someone is selling.
>>"I'm not saying they should release it out to the general public, but allow developers to read the docs.../I.
What? You guys get ID cards or something? How are you gonna distinguish developers from the "general public"?
Blood tests might do it.
Correct. In addition, there's the cost of updating and correcting the specs every time the hardware changes.
Plus, it is just possible they don't want independent vendors writing code that talks to their hardware.
I was actually talking about hardware, but, well, a lot of people, like me, don't want universal spell checking. It's an annoyance. I'd be happy if I could highight any onscreen piece of text, in any program, and submit it to a spellchecker.
For that matter, I'd like to be able to also print that chunk and/or save it or add it to a file. That would be more useful than spellchecking.
It hasn't been technology standing in the way of universal spellchecking. It's been because the industry is competitive and everyone wants to do things their way.
Ummm, there aren't "kajillions" of customers running PPC chips. There's essentially only the tiny sliver of the market running Macs.
And Mac users, at least the one's with incomes, won't run Linux on their PPC Macs. They'll run OS X and Mac software until that dries up, and then they will go out and buy new Macs.
People who are so emotionally attached to their hardware that they feel abandoned and betrayed when the vendor changes chips need to seek therapy.
I certainly hope there nothing we recognize as Windows in 20 years. Or OS X or Linux. Advances in technology and hardware better render today's toys obsolete. or else the IT business is going bust.
I agree that Apple's embrace of Intel poses no threat to Linux, but not for the reasons outlined in the article.
Linux is increasingly driven by ideology and the fact that it can be obtained at no cost. It's merits as a desktop system have improved, but, by and large, it isn't good enough to attract large numbers of people already using Windows or a Mac. It is good enough to not be a dealbreaker for people who are atracted to Linux because they support its underlying ideology or simply don't want to pay for their software.
Could the Linux desktop become to good that it, alone, attracts users? Sure, but it isn't there yet.
>> ..."...Everything else on his list are must haves for ALL users."
I agree, but I was talking about what people actually do, not what someone else thinks they ought to do. If the assertion had been about programs users should run, his point would be valid. However, his assertion was about programs that users do run. Wishing for something doesn't make it real.
Wrong. I said Microsoft's profits are indicative of their success. Since the objective of a business is profit, that seems rather obvious.
Well, if your words say one thing but you think they mean another, who's mistake is that?
Who said anything about MS being omnipotent? Who's talking about something being "good or right"? That impliles a moral component for sofftwware, which is impossible.
Forego the hyperbole and get to grips with the fact that I said Microsoft's profits are indicative of their success.