An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.
In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.
And there will be one true database, the legislation is already in place, there will also be lots of very useful databases which can be trivially indexed onto the primary one using the ID number.
To be identified as undesirable and butchered. By complete strangers who otherwise know nothing about them. You might think it's far fetched, well it would be if it hadn't already happened.
e.g. http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgen ocides/r wanda/indangamuntu.htm
I have no intention of giving that kind of power to the people in charge.
ID cards are tools of discrimination, they make it *easy*, they make it attractive. You might well be discriminated against for being Lesbian by people who know you or have seen you. Imagine it recorded in your ID database record for banks and employers.
The election system is first past the post. That means that voting for anything but the 2 largest parties is a waste of time, and currently the Conservative vote is split between the Conservatives and the UK Independance party. This means that the Conservatives can't win. The Liberal party aren't large enough to win.
Seriously *HUGE*. Banks, Post Offices, Hospitals, Doctors, DWP offices, Police Offices would all need access and specialised biometric kit to demonstrate that the cards are valid.
An ID card system would be far far larger and more complex than the NHS IT system. The estimated 3 billion cost is a joke. A white elephant doesn't begin to describe it, a white Mammoth might.
You think that because you are issued an ID card that you won't also have to carry your driving license, your credit cards, your library card, your Rotary Club card?
No, it's an *additional* ID that you will have to carry.
Not only that. To be remotely effective it is an ID which it must be compulsory to carry, that means fines and jail time if you don't. The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you get fined. You don't tell them you also live at your girlfriends? That's an offense.
The "If you've nothing to hide" and all that argument. Well, ask the Jews in Germany with the J stamp on their ID cards, or the Rwandans who were massacred because their ethnicity was mentioned on their card whether they thought they had anything to hide.
You may well think you have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow ID cards are the perfect discrimination tool, that is after all the whole purpose for an ID card.
Why ID cards are useless, or at least, the arguments given for them so far are bogus: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834
UK campaign against ID cards: http://www.no2id.net/
Seriously, if they aren't competent to do the job, their responsibilities should be reduced to the point that they are compentent. i.e. Patents should be published for an extended period for discussion before being granted by a vote from interested parties. The patent examiners responsibilities can then be reduced to managing the process.
Definitely *not* an example of how it should work. You have an external organisation doing the job that the patent office itself should be doing. That's a failure in need of reform. Perhaps if business processes and software were not patentable, the patent office might have more resources to devote to patents which are worthy of being granted.
Death is part of life. Do you mourn every person who dies somewhere in the world? No, you couldn't care less because you don't know them. I don't know any of the people mentioned personally and their death (or not) is irrelevant to me. Will their loss be felt? Not even a little bit, I suggest you get a bit of perspective into your life.
The original film was ok and the series is just about watchable if you're not doing anything else, largely due to Richard Dean Anderson. The brand? Fuck the brand.
This really just shows the contempt the American viewer is held in. They aren't even attempting to come up with anything new and original. Any old recycled crap will do it seems.
The existing election system actually elects the largest minority, you don't need a majority of the population to vote for you at all. Therefore what you *should* be doing is giving a substantial portion of your funding to rivals of your main opposition, those people who are in a similar area of the political spectrum and who might have a chance of taking votes away from the main opposition.
E.g. In a generally right wing state:
Far right: 10% Right: 39% Left: 40% Other: 11%
So, it's possible for a left wing candidate to take a generally far right wing state if he's politically savvy enough to take advantage of the stupidity of the election system and spend a portion of his funding helping opposition candidates who really don't have a chance of winning.
Seem fairly profitable to me. In fact, Ryanair are profitable while still charging ridiculously low fares. Of course you qualified your statement with "consistently" and "over time" which basically makes it worthless. Who'd have thought that any business would be profitable all the time and for ever.
I'd put money on it that virtually any piece of software that anyone writes now violates one or more US patents.
It seems that the goal of introducing software patents was to give all software development to the big guys with patent portfolios of their own they can use for defence.
"This data was collected on a dual CPU UltraSPARC(R)-III running at 1015 MHz with 2G of memory."
Looking at the performance data it just blazes along on that config. Not exactly what I'd call an embedable system, though Microsoft might beg to differ.
Yah yah, if you start at the Y2K spending and silliness it does look like the stock has tanked, but if you think of Y2K as a blip it looks more like reasonable growth.
Trains are fantastic for very high capacity point to point, A-B transport during rush hour, but otherwise they suck. PRT is the way to go in the future, much cheaper than trains and far faster and more convenient.
Transportation revolutions take a generation
on
NYT On Flying Cars
·
· Score: 0
It'll be 20-30 years from the point where there is a real fully working prototype to the point where the ordinary person can make use of it.
"Yes, NiMH/Li-Ion can just about double that, but I don't think the extra cost is worth it"
NiMH would double the 100 miles for a lead acid powered vehicle, LiON would triple/quadruple it. In terms of cost, Thunder Sky sell LiON batteries which are comparable in price to Lead Acid batteries but 1/4 the size/weight.
"Lead Acid batteries work just fine thank you."
No, they don't. 100 miles isn't remotely enough. A 400 mile range is required for a viable electric vehicle. Hence the retirement of the EV1.
The hydrogen will be manufactured using grid electricity. Most of that is fossil powered. This particular vehicle will increase the demand for fossil fuels *because* of it's inefficiency.
An internal combustion engine is anything but simple or cheap to own. Electric motors are far simpler, more reliable, require less servicing, last longer, are more efficient *and* have better torque characteristics.
Battery vehicles can be recharged fairly quickly these days, 20 mins to 2 hours depending and now have ranges of hundreds of miles.
Slashdot Mirror
An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.
In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.
And there will be one true database, the legislation is already in place, there will also be lots of very useful databases which can be trivially indexed onto the primary one using the ID number.
To be identified as undesirable and butchered. By complete strangers who otherwise know nothing about them. You might think it's far fetched, well it would be if it hadn't already happened.
n ocides/r wanda/indangamuntu.htm
e.g.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastge
I have no intention of giving that kind of power to the people in charge.
ID cards are tools of discrimination, they make it *easy*, they make it attractive. You might well be discriminated against for being Lesbian by people who know you or have seen you. Imagine it recorded in your ID database record for banks and employers.
Cos I can get you one. It isn't difficult. Then you could prove you are anyone you want to be.
They already know that.
The election system is first past the post. That means that voting for anything but the 2 largest parties is a waste of time, and currently the Conservative vote is split between the Conservatives and the UK Independance party. This means that the Conservatives can't win. The Liberal party aren't large enough to win.
HTH
Seriously *HUGE*. Banks, Post Offices, Hospitals, Doctors, DWP offices, Police Offices would all need access and specialised biometric kit to demonstrate that the cards are valid.
An ID card system would be far far larger and more complex than the NHS IT system. The estimated 3 billion cost is a joke. A white elephant doesn't begin to describe it, a white Mammoth might.
You think that because you are issued an ID card that you won't also have to carry your driving license, your credit cards, your library card, your Rotary Club card?
No, it's an *additional* ID that you will have to carry.
Not only that. To be remotely effective it is an ID which it must be compulsory to carry, that means fines and jail time if you don't. The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you get fined. You don't tell them you also live at your girlfriends? That's an offense.
You think you should need a license simply to be alive as well?
The "If you've nothing to hide" and all that argument. Well, ask the Jews in Germany with the J stamp on their ID cards, or the Rwandans who were massacred because their ethnicity was mentioned on their card whether they thought they had anything to hide.
You may well think you have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow ID cards are the perfect discrimination tool, that is after all the whole purpose for an ID card.
Why ID cards are useless, or at least, the arguments given for them so far are bogus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834
UK campaign against ID cards:
http://www.no2id.net/
Seriously, if they aren't competent to do the job, their responsibilities should be reduced to the point that they are compentent. i.e. Patents should be published for an extended period for discussion before being granted by a vote from interested parties. The patent examiners responsibilities can then be reduced to managing the process.
Definitely *not* an example of how it should work. You have an external organisation doing the job that the patent office itself should be doing. That's a failure in need of reform. Perhaps if business processes and software were not patentable, the patent office might have more resources to devote to patents which are worthy of being granted.
Death is part of life. Do you mourn every person who dies somewhere in the world? No, you couldn't care less because you don't know them. I don't know any of the people mentioned personally and their death (or not) is irrelevant to me. Will their loss be felt? Not even a little bit, I suggest you get a bit of perspective into your life.
Which makes it illegal to sell a computer without Windows bundled. That'll stop these evil pirates.
The original film was ok and the series is just about watchable if you're not doing anything else, largely due to Richard Dean Anderson. The brand? Fuck the brand.
This really just shows the contempt the American viewer is held in. They aren't even attempting to come up with anything new and original. Any old recycled crap will do it seems.
Is to divide and conquer.
The existing election system actually elects the largest minority, you don't need a majority of the population to vote for you at all. Therefore what you *should* be doing is giving a substantial portion of your funding to rivals of your main opposition, those people who are in a similar area of the political spectrum and who might have a chance of taking votes away from the main opposition.
E.g. In a generally right wing state:
Far right: 10%
Right: 39%
Left: 40%
Other: 11%
So, it's possible for a left wing candidate to take a generally far right wing state if he's politically savvy enough to take advantage of the stupidity of the election system and spend a portion of his funding helping opposition candidates who really don't have a chance of winning.
Seem fairly profitable to me. In fact, Ryanair are profitable while still charging ridiculously low fares. Of course you qualified your statement with "consistently" and "over time" which basically makes it worthless. Who'd have thought that any business would be profitable all the time and for ever.
I'd put money on it that virtually any piece of software that anyone writes now violates one or more US patents.
It seems that the goal of introducing software patents was to give all software development to the big guys with patent portfolios of their own they can use for defence.
"This data was collected on a dual CPU UltraSPARC(R)-III running at 1015 MHz with 2G of memory."
Looking at the performance data it just blazes along on that config. Not exactly what I'd call an embedable system, though Microsoft might beg to differ.
Britain is made up of several countries.
Yah yah, if you start at the Y2K spending and silliness it does look like the stock has tanked, but if you think of Y2K as a blip it looks more like reasonable growth.
Trains are fantastic for very high capacity point to point, A-B transport during rush hour, but otherwise they suck. PRT is the way to go in the future, much cheaper than trains and far faster and more convenient.
It'll be 20-30 years from the point where there is a real fully working prototype to the point where the ordinary person can make use of it.
"Yes, NiMH/Li-Ion can just about double that, but I don't think the extra cost is worth it"
NiMH would double the 100 miles for a lead acid powered vehicle, LiON would triple/quadruple it. In terms of cost, Thunder Sky sell LiON batteries which are comparable in price to Lead Acid batteries but 1/4 the size/weight.
"Lead Acid batteries work just fine thank you."
No, they don't. 100 miles isn't remotely enough. A 400 mile range is required for a viable electric vehicle. Hence the retirement of the EV1.
From an Anonymous Coward? Why should I bother?
Diesel is the name of the inventor of the Diesel engine Rudolf Diesel.
The hydrogen will be manufactured using grid electricity. Most of that is fossil powered. This particular vehicle will increase the demand for fossil fuels *because* of it's inefficiency.
An internal combustion engine is anything but simple or cheap to own. Electric motors are far simpler, more reliable, require less servicing, last longer, are more efficient *and* have better torque characteristics.
Battery vehicles can be recharged fairly quickly these days, 20 mins to 2 hours depending and now have ranges of hundreds of miles.