NY Times? Washington Post? ABC News? NSA? Washington? It doesn't get any more obvious. But you got your post in early enough you are going +5 despite your post being completely wrong.
If all of the volunteer kernel developers become convinced microkernels are better, and move over to working on Minix from Linux, Linus eventually becomes a nobody. That is a good reason to care.
As to remembering your credit card nubmer: most people don't memorize their numbers, and they gat along fine. This is a non-issue.
As to the revocatoin system: Even infrequent CRL distribution is 1000x better than the current method. Low-security systems could get CRLs once per month, say, while high security systems check on every transaction.
As to authentication to be issued a card: There is no perfect option, but many are better than what we do now. We could require notarization by a relative. "yes, he's my son, here's my card." We could compare to an on-file biometric (as simple as a photograph/fingerprints, or as complex as retina scanning). We could use a combination, and make some things optional to avoid privacy concerns. In any case, this should be done in person at a government facility.
Bringing a social security card is already required to renew your driver's license and the like. This would be WAY better in every way. And the money saved on fraud would more than pay for the upgrade.
And with the ability to sign/all/ documents digitally, etc, just imagine the long-term savings in time and money...
I don't know... I think the fix for the moderation system is to require more justification than this one-word stuff, like "flamebait." It should have more descriptive options, and REQUIRE the mod write-in some justification. That would also make metamoding much easier. But having groups of moderation would make for a broken conversation, would it not? Different comments would be visible to different people on the same discussion.
Also, it seem strange to me that the ZA government would fund a comedy movie. I've been there, and the government is kinda commie-ish, I guess, but they weren't back then, were they?
Those might be considered radical ideas. Most people think taxation is essential to government, and taxation can't be done properly without being able to establish identities. Having multiple organizations come up with their own identification methods is inefficient, and will probably lead to poor implementation and more fraud. Also, having universal identification will help in all sorts of commerce. Those are real benefits.
Like anything else, it could be abused. I don' think that abuse is likely enough to negate all the benefits.
Establishing identity is essential for all governments. We can either do it right, or keep doing it wrong (with SSN), thereby subjecting ourself to constant fraud.
I would love to see how you expect to run a government if you have no good way of verifying people are who they say they are.
I'm fine with keeping the SSN as a unique identifier. But its use has to be authenticated somehow! Then illegal immigrants can't assert your sister's is their own.
Having a universal, unique, public identifier is a great thing for many reasons. But to work right, that number must be authenticated.
You and I both understand the science here, I think. But the write-up, and CN's comment, are both misleading, at least according to my interperetation of them.
They both suggest that this expirement casts doubt on a fundamental theory, when in fact, they do not.
I HATE bad science reporting.
If CN did read the article, and still approved it, unmodified, and made these comments, then I would say he is being intentionally misleading to drive up reads. And if he didn't read it, then he is not doing his job well. Either way, shame on him. How can you defend that?
Many companies and government organizations use the SSN as some kind of shared secret for the purposes of establishing identity.
This law wants to prop up this model.
THIS IS A STUPID MODEL.
There are much better ways of establishing identity than using the SSN.
What we need to do is STOP USING SSN TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY!!!
Then it can be public, you can post it wherever you want, and we won't have to deal with the impossible problem of putting the cat back in the bag.
Government issued smartcards, with a simple PKI (and revocation system) would be a perfect method for establishing identity. We need to put the money in to that, not trying to keep some unchangable number secret.
How much energy you put it doesn't matter. You admit this yourself. The cost of getting energy into a transportable, usable form (what I call a battery) is what matters.
Right now, land with sunlight may be cheap enough to make growing plants a good solutioin.
In the future, land with sun will inevitably become much more expensive.
You admit Sun (the energy source) is almost free. So your entire idea about classifying things as "net-positive" is pointless. Sun can be used to charge batteries or hydrogen cells.
"Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.
The owner of a company being valued more than the workers is exactly how it should be. That is what it means to own something. If you think otherwise, you're cracked.
Net positive? Does that mean anything? Gas is a battery powered by the Sun a long time ago. Biodiesel is a battery powered by the Sun recently. In both cases, Sun energy is wasted while "charging" the battery.
So it is all net negative.
And it doesn't matter how it burns. Whether the energy is stored in electrons or as chemicals, it is still a battery.
Hydrogen can be charged in many more ways than biodiesel can be. So it definitely has some advantages.
Net positive and net negative are not meaningful words when talking about batteries.
It seems you realize that Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is a battery. Yet your arguments against it are all based on the fact that it is a poor fuel source.
Thermodynamics don't enter into it! Do you expect all batteries to output more energy than it takes to charge them?
Gas is just a pre-charged battery. Once we run out of pre-charged batteries, we will need to charge our own. Some smart people have concluded that hydrogen will be the best battery technology. I say we should examine that option fully.
Remember, it is a battery. If you want to rip on it, compare it to other batteries.
In the era of copy-and-paste, using "[sic]" has no value. Nobody thinks you screwed up your typesetting. We all know the use of "[sic]" is just an attempt at an ad hominem by pointing out someone else's irrelevent mistakes.
I set up cross-compiling on several random boxes back when I was in college, and it just worked. But I wasn't complining to S/390. So if you say that doesn't work, I believe you.
Slashdot Mirror
NY Times? Washington Post? ABC News? NSA? Washington? It doesn't get any more obvious. But you got your post in early enough you are going +5 despite your post being completely wrong.
If all of the volunteer kernel developers become convinced microkernels are better, and move over to working on Minix from Linux, Linus eventually becomes a nobody. That is a good reason to care.
As to remembering your credit card nubmer: most people don't memorize their numbers, and they gat along fine. This is a non-issue.
/all/ documents digitally, etc, just imagine the long-term savings in time and money...
As to the revocatoin system: Even infrequent CRL distribution is 1000x better than the current method. Low-security systems could get CRLs once per month, say, while high security systems check on every transaction.
As to authentication to be issued a card: There is no perfect option, but many are better than what we do now. We could require notarization by a relative. "yes, he's my son, here's my card." We could compare to an on-file biometric (as simple as a photograph/fingerprints, or as complex as retina scanning). We could use a combination, and make some things optional to avoid privacy concerns. In any case, this should be done in person at a government facility.
Bringing a social security card is already required to renew your driver's license and the like. This would be WAY better in every way. And the money saved on fraud would more than pay for the upgrade.
And with the ability to sign
I don't know... I think the fix for the moderation system is to require more justification than this one-word stuff, like "flamebait." It should have more descriptive options, and REQUIRE the mod write-in some justification. That would also make metamoding much easier. But having groups of moderation would make for a broken conversation, would it not? Different comments would be visible to different people on the same discussion.
Also, it seem strange to me that the ZA government would fund a comedy movie. I've been there, and the government is kinda commie-ish, I guess, but they weren't back then, were they?
Well, I don't know what spin most people read into that, but at least 3 moderators interpreted it my way :-)
A degree in physics would tend to make one spin-resistant, though.
Those might be considered radical ideas. Most people think taxation is essential to government, and taxation can't be done properly without being able to establish identities. Having multiple organizations come up with their own identification methods is inefficient, and will probably lead to poor implementation and more fraud. Also, having universal identification will help in all sorts of commerce. Those are real benefits.
Like anything else, it could be abused. I don' think that abuse is likely enough to negate all the benefits.
Establishing identity is essential for all governments. We can either do it right, or keep doing it wrong (with SSN), thereby subjecting ourself to constant fraud.
I would love to see how you expect to run a government if you have no good way of verifying people are who they say they are.
I won't vote for a government that will require me to bring an ID at all times. Would you? Ask your friends: would they?
Issuing a smartcard is NOT the same as requiring ID at all times.
It is only a problem if we allow it to be a problem.
I'm fine with keeping the SSN as a unique identifier. But its use has to be authenticated somehow! Then illegal immigrants can't assert your sister's is their own.
Having a universal, unique, public identifier is a great thing for many reasons. But to work right, that number must be authenticated.
You and I both understand the science here, I think. But the write-up, and CN's comment, are both misleading, at least according to my interperetation of them.
They both suggest that this expirement casts doubt on a fundamental theory, when in fact, they do not.
I HATE bad science reporting.
If CN did read the article, and still approved it, unmodified, and made these comments, then I would say he is being intentionally misleading to drive up reads. And if he didn't read it, then he is not doing his job well. Either way, shame on him. How can you defend that?
Many companies and government organizations use the SSN as some kind of shared secret for the purposes of establishing identity.
This law wants to prop up this model.
THIS IS A STUPID MODEL.
There are much better ways of establishing identity than using the SSN.
What we need to do is STOP USING SSN TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY!!!
Then it can be public, you can post it wherever you want, and we won't have to deal with the impossible problem of putting the cat back in the bag.
Government issued smartcards, with a simple PKI (and revocation system) would be a perfect method for establishing identity. We need to put the money in to that, not trying to keep some unchangable number secret.
By "put... to the test" he means verify that Einstein is right. There is NOTHING in this article that even remotely suggests that Einstein was wrong.
CowboyNeal got it wrong. So did you. Good job.
How much energy you put it doesn't matter. You admit this yourself. The cost of getting energy into a transportable, usable form (what I call a battery) is what matters.
Right now, land with sunlight may be cheap enough to make growing plants a good solutioin.
In the future, land with sun will inevitably become much more expensive.
You admit Sun (the energy source) is almost free. So your entire idea about classifying things as "net-positive" is pointless. Sun can be used to charge batteries or hydrogen cells.
It is total cost that matters, not "net" energy.
To a scientist, engineer, researcher, or person with anything but the most-common monitor size, you're right. Those sites suck ass.
To a marketoid: oooh, they're shiny and colorful!
"Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.
Way to read the article, CowboyNeal.
How about C) Teach people to save money and avoid debt, so that bouts of unemployment or career change don't ruin their lives.
The owner of a company being valued more than the workers is exactly how it should be. That is what it means to own something. If you think otherwise, you're cracked.
Net positive? Does that mean anything? Gas is a battery powered by the Sun a long time ago. Biodiesel is a battery powered by the Sun recently. In both cases, Sun energy is wasted while "charging" the battery.
So it is all net negative.
And it doesn't matter how it burns. Whether the energy is stored in electrons or as chemicals, it is still a battery.
Hydrogen can be charged in many more ways than biodiesel can be. So it definitely has some advantages.
Net positive and net negative are not meaningful words when talking about batteries.
It seems you realize that Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is a battery. Yet your arguments against it are all based on the fact that it is a poor fuel source.
Thermodynamics don't enter into it! Do you expect all batteries to output more energy than it takes to charge them?
Gas is just a pre-charged battery. Once we run out of pre-charged batteries, we will need to charge our own. Some smart people have concluded that hydrogen will be the best battery technology. I say we should examine that option fully.
Remember, it is a battery. If you want to rip on it, compare it to other batteries.
Why go in to debt? Why not buy cars they can afford?
In the era of copy-and-paste, using "[sic]" has no value. Nobody thinks you screwed up your typesetting. We all know the use of "[sic]" is just an attempt at an ad hominem by pointing out someone else's irrelevent mistakes.
s/for one,//g
I set up cross-compiling on several random boxes back when I was in college, and it just worked. But I wasn't complining to S/390. So if you say that doesn't work, I believe you.
What part of distcc don't you understand?
To understand vi, you must first understand ed.
Ed is the standard text editor.