California doesn't seem to have a problem defying Federal jurisdiction and Federal laws regarding "sanctuary cities" that shield illegal aliens from the consequences of violating Federal immigration laws.
It's not on individual states to enforce federal laws. The federal government has a pretty limited set of enumerated powers and commandeering state and local police to enforce federal laws isn't one of them. Historically they've cooperated, but they are not obligated to. See, for example, the Texas law enjoining state agencies from enforcing certain federal firearms laws. In general states can't obstruct, but aren't obligated to help either.
The stick the feds use is generally tying federal aid to compliance with certain directives. Want federal school funding? Comply with no child left behind. Want highway funds? Enforce the national speed limit, and so on.
At some point the law needs to change or be enforced. The status quo is a mockery of the rule of law.
The federal government's tortuous interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause justifying their authority to ban intrastate marijuana sale and possession is a mockery of the rule of law.
The problem in the US is that they vote on vast numbers of things. At most, in the UK, I'm voting for 3-4 offices at a time (MP, MEP, devolved parliament / assembly representative, local councillor) and these rarely line up so I typically only vote for 1-2 at a time. In the US, they vote for everything from local dog catcher on up. This increases the complexity of the elections considerably (and has secondary effects, such as politicising the judiciary - which in other countries is intended to be apolitical - by making both the judges and the district attorneys elected positions).
It should be noted that this varies state by state in the US. In my state of Massachusetts, for example, judges aren't elected but are appointed for life. We do elect for various offices at the state, county, and municipal levels however.
Also, some towns, like to one I grew up in, still practice direct democracy in the form of a town meeting. Any eligible voter can attend the meeting, and everyone in attendance gets to speak and vote on proposed ordinances.
An SSN is a good primary key in a database because each SSN should correspond to a unique person.
SSN is a terrible primary key in a database. It's a good candidate key for uniqueness but not sufficient by any means. I worked designing databases that tracked patient records and tied to demographics for many years had to learn the hard way that SSNs:
* Are not necessarily unique (they can be reused after death) * Are frequently not assigned to children * Are not held by all adults * Are not held by all adult citizens * Are not held by all adult citizens with jobs * Are not held by all adult citizens with jobs that pay taxes * Have no check digit (can be easily mis-keyed) * Are not necessarily held for the lifetime of an individual * Are occasionally falsified or misreported (shocking, I know)
For all of these reasons and more, when building a master person index (MPI), you use multiple heuristics to attempt to identify individuals positively. Among them are things like SSN, yes, but also SSN-off-by-1-digit, SSN-2-digits-transposed, home phone, address, address-soundex, home-phone-off-by-1-digit, driver's license, etc. The weights you assign to these heuristics depend on the demographics of the population you are trying to track. An SSN match carries more weight in rural Vermont, for example, than it would in LA. The output of your matching algorithm is a confidence value that two candidate records match. Then, again depending on your demographics, you set thresholds for p-match indicating whether the match is positive, negative, or indeterminate and needs to go into a work queue for a human to decide.
Then, once you've uniquely identified someone, you do the sane thing and assign them a synthetic identifier (UUID or sequence number) as their database primary key. You should also generate a record number for use by humans that has some safety features built in like error detection, being non-sequential, and having some mnemonic properties.
Codebook does this as well for Mac/Windows/iOS/Android - it also lets you choose what, if any, cloud provider you use to sync through. You can also just sync over WiFi or LAN if you don't want your password DB to pass trough someone else's system.
Gift cards suck. Get a reloadable visa debit card for them instead. Unlike a gift card that ends up with some fractional amount of a dollar left on it that the company just pockets because you never ever spend it, the card can be reloaded with more cash, and used as a buffer for online purchases. (EG, rather than risk exposure from your retailer's delicious store of credit cards getting hacked and leaked, your real card number is safe. The retailer has the reloadable visa, and when it gets drained, it just gets denied. You dont end up with thousands of dollars of debt that you have to dispute.)
You don't need a reloadable card for this. May CC companies let you generate temporary numbers linked to your main account. These can be set to be valid for a limited amount of time, have access to a limited credit line, or both. If the site does something shady or you get a report of a breach, you can just delete the temporary number from your account.
What "security" does having a predictable set of account numbers bring? These aren't bank routing numbers, they are just keys to a stored value. The only requirement is that they be unique and hard to guess. When the card is being activated, just check to see the uuid has never been used before and record the value of the now active card.
Alternatively, cards should have a PIN on a scratch off window on the back of the card which is not magnetically encoded but is associated with the card number when activating. Make the user enter the PIN when checking the value online. This would prevent the attack on the website described in the article since the attacker won't have access to the PINs.
I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.
Another flaw in bitcoin is that its design assumes that anyone can be a miner. That was an incorrect assumption. CPUs and GPUs can not economically mine bitcoin, specialized ASIC hardware is necessary. So mining is not done by the masses as assumed, it is done by a specialized few.
This is why there are some new coins that attempt to limit how effective ASICs can be by using memory constrained algorithms rather than compute constrained ones.
Mac owners, in general, aren't expected to do jack. Mac owners with the technical knowledge required to contrive the setup you describe are expected to be able to support their own inventions.
Boot Camp is an Apple product, built into the OS. Booting to Windows or another OS from a Mac is expected and supported, and this change makes that supported configuration less useful. Apple even ships drivers for Windows on the OSX install image to make specialized Mac hardware operable under Windows. Hopefully they ship at least a read-only APFS Windows driver at some point.
In the XBox360/PS3 generation, when the 360 was in the lead, the roles of the two companies were exactly reversed. Sony was saying they'd love to enable cross platform play and MS was making disingenuous excuses for why they couldn't: "for the good of the players".
The only way this is ever going to happen is if the two companies see a common interest in working together. If the console market as a whole took a nose dive in favor of PC online gaming, for example, they might see a benefit in keeping multiplayer queues full by enabling cross console play. Or if MS and Sony were neck and neck and Nintendo was way out ahead of them, then they might see a benefit.
But as it is right now, all enabling cross platform play will do for Sony is allow people who already own XBoxes to forgo buying a PS4 as a secondary console. Or worse, allow new console purchasers to choose their console solely on price, and not who has the largest installed base to play with.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand their position. With Scorpio coming out and PS4 losing the edge in graphical capability, the PS4's major advantage in the eyes of the average consumer is that (all else being equal), more of their friends probably already own a PS4, so they will have more people to play with on that platform. No way is Sony going to voluntarily erase that advantage.
Couldn't you just encrypt the plain text password history using a key derived from the current password? Then when attempting to change the password, you use the old password to decrypt the list and compare the desired new password to the history file using whatever likeness algorithm you like. If the new password turns out to be acceptable, re-encrypt the history using a new PBK based on the new password.
Bitcoin would disappear tomorrow if there was an actually anonymous (Bitcoin isn't even really anonymous) way of sending literally anything of value.
BTC should be reasonably anonymous if you take the appropriate precaution of either mining your own currency or paying for BTC with cash. There are also other newer currencies like Zcash that are designed from the ground up to tackle the privacy issue.
There are limits to what a business can accomplish, and it sounds like you've reached a fairly hard boundary. If your shareholders don't understand that, they should piss off or sell - sounds like you don't need additional capital at this point anyway.
There's a problem for employees when you stop growing too though. Your best and most ambitious employees all want new areas of responsibility to grow into. They want more than simple cost-of-living increases each year. This means they need occasional promotions. If you stop growing, there is no more room at the top, meaning you can only promote when someone leaves. As the stagnation continues, your best mid level employees are going to leave for greener pastures with more opportunity. This can lead to a decline in quality and instead of continuing to have flat revenue, now you are actually shrinking.
Go into the fucking vault and get the lady her pension money in cash. The bank can eat the loss, the problem is their fault, and at her age, she's earned it.
The artificial womb will free women from the expectation of motherhood in order to perpetuate the species. markdavis's remark about women being able to build up their professional life without worrying about missing out on motherhood will be just the first symptom of this liberating technology.
That is only the case if your definition of motherhood begins at conception and ends at delivery. Your life as a parent is just starting at that moment. If you asked my wife, she will definitely say she is more comfortable now, but in terms of time, energy, and resources, our kids definitely consume more of all three outside the womb than in it.
You could envision some far future society where sperm and egg are decanted from banks, brought to term in artificial wombs, and raised in creches to adulthood by a professional child rearing class, all without ever meeting or knowing their biological parents. I think we are a long way off from something like that though, both because of how our society is structured and because of biological drives that won't be satisfied by donating gametes.
You don't understand crowd funding. Every single crowd funding site that doesn't want to get smacked down by the SEC will explicitly tell you, in no uncertain terms, that contributing to a crowd funded project is not an investment. You are making a non-tax-deductible donation to a private corporation in the form of the crowd funding administrator. This company will transfer most of your gift (minus their vig) to the project you donated to. The project may, at their discretion, offer thank you gifts at various donation levels. Think donating to your local PBS affiliate minus the ability to write it off.
Investors have rights, gift givers get a non-obligatory pat on the back.
I think we even pioneered it. Late 90's up to around 2001 and then starting in 2003 people were spending 6 months to a year at a job and then looking for something else
I am tail end of gen X (born '78). I don't know if it's me or just the Boston job market, but I don't see that much rapid job hopping around here among my peers. Personally, I worked for a single company from '97 to 2012, although there was an acquisition thrown in there. I do know that as a hiring manager, if I see a resume with 5 positions in the last 4 years, it is going to the bottom of my pile. When you are working on a large deployed system with plenty of legacy code, it takes at least a few months to get a new person completely up to speed to the point where you can trust their commits. If I spend all that effort training the person, I don't want someone who is going to ditch 6 months later.
"...Trump's policy of bringing back coal may mean that micro-babies are back in fashion."
Politics aside for a moment, this kind of wording makes me wonder how the fuck humans ever succeeded in procreating before nuclear power was invented, as if incubators were some kind of fashion trend.
Yes, perhaps we should get back to the "healthy" standard of macro babies, especially with c-sections being all the rage in the spring lineup for 2017...
While the c-section rate ha ballooned beyond what is necessary (particularly in the US), what happened before was that a non-trivial number of mothers and babies died in child birth. We evolved to walk upright and a big brain more or less concurrently. It's a tough ask of our hips to allows us to walk upright and allow a baby with such a big head to pass through.
Interesting, I attended Northeastern undergrad from 97-01 and my CS courses were 90% white dudes. Maybe there is a shift at the graduate level or it is highly dependent on the location of the school. It would be interesting if there was such a dramatic shift in demographics in just 5-7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a freeze at all FOUR agencies now. Don't forget Innovis.
It's actually five. Don't forget Chex Systems.
A rocket is an aircraft, and any aircraft transportation is banned.
Fine, trebuchet it is then.
California doesn't seem to have a problem defying Federal jurisdiction and Federal laws regarding "sanctuary cities" that shield illegal aliens from the consequences of violating Federal immigration laws.
It's not on individual states to enforce federal laws. The federal government has a pretty limited set of enumerated powers and commandeering state and local police to enforce federal laws isn't one of them. Historically they've cooperated, but they are not obligated to. See, for example, the Texas law enjoining state agencies from enforcing certain federal firearms laws. In general states can't obstruct, but aren't obligated to help either.
The stick the feds use is generally tying federal aid to compliance with certain directives. Want federal school funding? Comply with no child left behind. Want highway funds? Enforce the national speed limit, and so on.
At some point the law needs to change or be enforced. The status quo is a mockery of the rule of law.
The federal government's tortuous interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause justifying their authority to ban intrastate marijuana sale and possession is a mockery of the rule of law.
The problem in the US is that they vote on vast numbers of things. At most, in the UK, I'm voting for 3-4 offices at a time (MP, MEP, devolved parliament / assembly representative, local councillor) and these rarely line up so I typically only vote for 1-2 at a time. In the US, they vote for everything from local dog catcher on up. This increases the complexity of the elections considerably (and has secondary effects, such as politicising the judiciary - which in other countries is intended to be apolitical - by making both the judges and the district attorneys elected positions).
It should be noted that this varies state by state in the US. In my state of Massachusetts, for example, judges aren't elected but are appointed for life. We do elect for various offices at the state, county, and municipal levels however.
Also, some towns, like to one I grew up in, still practice direct democracy in the form of a town meeting. Any eligible voter can attend the meeting, and everyone in attendance gets to speak and vote on proposed ordinances.
An SSN is a good primary key in a database because each SSN should correspond to a unique person.
SSN is a terrible primary key in a database. It's a good candidate key for uniqueness but not sufficient by any means. I worked designing databases that tracked patient records and tied to demographics for many years had to learn the hard way that SSNs:
* Are not necessarily unique (they can be reused after death)
* Are frequently not assigned to children
* Are not held by all adults
* Are not held by all adult citizens
* Are not held by all adult citizens with jobs
* Are not held by all adult citizens with jobs that pay taxes
* Have no check digit (can be easily mis-keyed)
* Are not necessarily held for the lifetime of an individual
* Are occasionally falsified or misreported (shocking, I know)
For all of these reasons and more, when building a master person index (MPI), you use multiple heuristics to attempt to identify individuals positively. Among them are things like SSN, yes, but also SSN-off-by-1-digit, SSN-2-digits-transposed, home phone, address, address-soundex, home-phone-off-by-1-digit, driver's license, etc. The weights you assign to these heuristics depend on the demographics of the population you are trying to track. An SSN match carries more weight in rural Vermont, for example, than it would in LA. The output of your matching algorithm is a confidence value that two candidate records match. Then, again depending on your demographics, you set thresholds for p-match indicating whether the match is positive, negative, or indeterminate and needs to go into a work queue for a human to decide.
Then, once you've uniquely identified someone, you do the sane thing and assign them a synthetic identifier (UUID or sequence number) as their database primary key. You should also generate a record number for use by humans that has some safety features built in like error detection, being non-sequential, and having some mnemonic properties.
Codebook does this as well for Mac/Windows/iOS/Android - it also lets you choose what, if any, cloud provider you use to sync through. You can also just sync over WiFi or LAN if you don't want your password DB to pass trough someone else's system.
Gift cards suck. Get a reloadable visa debit card for them instead. Unlike a gift card that ends up with some fractional amount of a dollar left on it that the company just pockets because you never ever spend it, the card can be reloaded with more cash, and used as a buffer for online purchases. (EG, rather than risk exposure from your retailer's delicious store of credit cards getting hacked and leaked, your real card number is safe. The retailer has the reloadable visa, and when it gets drained, it just gets denied. You dont end up with thousands of dollars of debt that you have to dispute.)
You don't need a reloadable card for this. May CC companies let you generate temporary numbers linked to your main account. These can be set to be valid for a limited amount of time, have access to a limited credit line, or both. If the site does something shady or you get a report of a breach, you can just delete the temporary number from your account.
What "security" does having a predictable set of account numbers bring? These aren't bank routing numbers, they are just keys to a stored value. The only requirement is that they be unique and hard to guess. When the card is being activated, just check to see the uuid has never been used before and record the value of the now active card.
Alternatively, cards should have a PIN on a scratch off window on the back of the card which is not magnetically encoded but is associated with the card number when activating. Make the user enter the PIN when checking the value online. This would prevent the attack on the website described in the article since the attacker won't have access to the PINs.
I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.
That's exactly what they did.
Another flaw in bitcoin is that its design assumes that anyone can be a miner. That was an incorrect assumption. CPUs and GPUs can not economically mine bitcoin, specialized ASIC hardware is necessary. So mining is not done by the masses as assumed, it is done by a specialized few.
This is why there are some new coins that attempt to limit how effective ASICs can be by using memory constrained algorithms rather than compute constrained ones.
Or are Mac owners expected
Mac owners, in general, aren't expected to do jack. Mac owners with the technical knowledge required to contrive the setup you describe are expected to be able to support their own inventions.
Boot Camp is an Apple product, built into the OS. Booting to Windows or another OS from a Mac is expected and supported, and this change makes that supported configuration less useful. Apple even ships drivers for Windows on the OSX install image to make specialized Mac hardware operable under Windows. Hopefully they ship at least a read-only APFS Windows driver at some point.
In the XBox360/PS3 generation, when the 360 was in the lead, the roles of the two companies were exactly reversed. Sony was saying they'd love to enable cross platform play and MS was making disingenuous excuses for why they couldn't: "for the good of the players".
The only way this is ever going to happen is if the two companies see a common interest in working together. If the console market as a whole took a nose dive in favor of PC online gaming, for example, they might see a benefit in keeping multiplayer queues full by enabling cross console play. Or if MS and Sony were neck and neck and Nintendo was way out ahead of them, then they might see a benefit.
But as it is right now, all enabling cross platform play will do for Sony is allow people who already own XBoxes to forgo buying a PS4 as a secondary console. Or worse, allow new console purchasers to choose their console solely on price, and not who has the largest installed base to play with.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand their position. With Scorpio coming out and PS4 losing the edge in graphical capability, the PS4's major advantage in the eyes of the average consumer is that (all else being equal), more of their friends probably already own a PS4, so they will have more people to play with on that platform. No way is Sony going to voluntarily erase that advantage.
Couldn't you just encrypt the plain text password history using a key derived from the current password? Then when attempting to change the password, you use the old password to decrypt the list and compare the desired new password to the history file using whatever likeness algorithm you like. If the new password turns out to be acceptable, re-encrypt the history using a new PBK based on the new password.
Eh, the DoD has had SAFE, an equivalent service, for years now. If anyone would be worried about exfiltration, you would think it would be them.
Bitcoin would disappear tomorrow if there was an actually anonymous (Bitcoin isn't even really anonymous) way of sending literally anything of value.
BTC should be reasonably anonymous if you take the appropriate precaution of either mining your own currency or paying for BTC with cash. There are also other newer currencies like Zcash that are designed from the ground up to tackle the privacy issue.
There are limits to what a business can accomplish, and it sounds like you've reached a fairly hard boundary. If your shareholders don't understand that, they should piss off or sell - sounds like you don't need additional capital at this point anyway.
There's a problem for employees when you stop growing too though. Your best and most ambitious employees all want new areas of responsibility to grow into. They want more than simple cost-of-living increases each year. This means they need occasional promotions. If you stop growing, there is no more room at the top, meaning you can only promote when someone leaves. As the stagnation continues, your best mid level employees are going to leave for greener pastures with more opportunity. This can lead to a decline in quality and instead of continuing to have flat revenue, now you are actually shrinking.
Replace Canada with Saudi Arabia and copyright infringement with blasphemy and see if you are still complacent with this decision.
Go into the fucking vault and get the lady her pension money in cash. The bank can eat the loss, the problem is their fault, and at her age, she's earned it.
The artificial womb will free women from the expectation of motherhood in order to perpetuate the species. markdavis's remark about women being able to build up their professional life without worrying about missing out on motherhood will be just the first symptom of this liberating technology.
That is only the case if your definition of motherhood begins at conception and ends at delivery. Your life as a parent is just starting at that moment. If you asked my wife, she will definitely say she is more comfortable now, but in terms of time, energy, and resources, our kids definitely consume more of all three outside the womb than in it.
You could envision some far future society where sperm and egg are decanted from banks, brought to term in artificial wombs, and raised in creches to adulthood by a professional child rearing class, all without ever meeting or knowing their biological parents. I think we are a long way off from something like that though, both because of how our society is structured and because of biological drives that won't be satisfied by donating gametes.
You don't understand crowd funding. Every single crowd funding site that doesn't want to get smacked down by the SEC will explicitly tell you, in no uncertain terms, that contributing to a crowd funded project is not an investment. You are making a non-tax-deductible donation to a private corporation in the form of the crowd funding administrator. This company will transfer most of your gift (minus their vig) to the project you donated to. The project may, at their discretion, offer thank you gifts at various donation levels. Think donating to your local PBS affiliate minus the ability to write it off.
Investors have rights, gift givers get a non-obligatory pat on the back.
I think we even pioneered it. Late 90's up to around 2001 and then starting in 2003 people were spending 6 months to a year at a job and then looking for something else
I am tail end of gen X (born '78). I don't know if it's me or just the Boston job market, but I don't see that much rapid job hopping around here among my peers. Personally, I worked for a single company from '97 to 2012, although there was an acquisition thrown in there. I do know that as a hiring manager, if I see a resume with 5 positions in the last 4 years, it is going to the bottom of my pile. When you are working on a large deployed system with plenty of legacy code, it takes at least a few months to get a new person completely up to speed to the point where you can trust their commits. If I spend all that effort training the person, I don't want someone who is going to ditch 6 months later.
Those examples are spikes in expenditures though, not dips in spending. None of those explain why cash in would be below average,
"...Trump's policy of bringing back coal may mean that micro-babies are back in fashion."
Politics aside for a moment, this kind of wording makes me wonder how the fuck humans ever succeeded in procreating before nuclear power was invented, as if incubators were some kind of fashion trend.
Yes, perhaps we should get back to the "healthy" standard of macro babies, especially with c-sections being all the rage in the spring lineup for 2017...
While the c-section rate ha ballooned beyond what is necessary (particularly in the US), what happened before was that a non-trivial number of mothers and babies died in child birth. We evolved to walk upright and a big brain more or less concurrently. It's a tough ask of our hips to allows us to walk upright and allow a baby with such a big head to pass through.
Interesting, I attended Northeastern undergrad from 97-01 and my CS courses were 90% white dudes. Maybe there is a shift at the graduate level or it is highly dependent on the location of the school. It would be interesting if there was such a dramatic shift in demographics in just 5-7 years.