a) Why would I need to write you a check, I can give you cash, goods, services etc... and why would I want a bank account, pay me in cash, goods , services please.
b) I buy alcohol for minors all the time, and I know lots of minors who get other people to buy them cigs.
c) If my family want to find me they will report me missing, or come looking. I tell them where I am, and they don't need to see id.
So, there is no reason for ID, unless you are the suspitions or criminal type.
Ok, it all seems a bit weird to a European that the government can do stuff like that, but why do they need to. Are we (in Europe) really crap at catching people or:
Do they want to catch everyone that makes the slightest error.
Is there a big problem in the US that requires data-mining compared to Europe.
Are you just crap at catching people in the US and need data-mining.
Are you planning on sacking half of the police force when data-mining by a couple of terminal operators catches everyone.
Help, it all seems like freaky big brother overkill, isn't a measure of civilisation 'the less you need to spy on your neighbour the more civilized you are'
I'm proposing , more-or-less the same solution as your better method except filtering should be applied at the first possible opertunity based upon how much you trust the certificates of the senders.
In your 'better solution' what's to stop spammers changing keys all the time unless you have to pay someone for the key who then assigns you a level of trust.
At the moment the servers are artificially slow: A lot of the email is junk (spam). and all the emails need to be filtered.
A potential solution could be to assign levels of trust to servers by allowing the servers to sign messages sent from them.
If you don't have any trust then your treated as a potential spammer, so your emails are delayed by all the spam.
If you do have trust then you skip the spam filters, or are only party to low level spam filters. so your emails are sent at near optimal speed(optimal speed being: no filtering in place).
You could set up different trust levels, most companies will never send spam, unless they are hacked, so they can be highly trusted.
If a spammer hacks a site then they should be dealt with.
More open companies like hotmail(who have some potential for spam),if they can mange to keep there spam levels down, get a high trust level, otherwise they get a medium, low or nill trust level.
Joe blogs could apply for a low level of trust and be dealt with if they spam.
Everyone else gets treated as potential spam,it's still open, we just don't trust you because you could be a spammer(which is exactly what happenes at the moment).
Because the filtering is based on a simple trust algorithm the overall overhead of scanning mail for spam goes down, speeding even the spammers up.
Breach of trust would be more legally binding than the current spam climate, so spammers wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they breached or forged trust.
no-one ever got sacked for a weird design soliution in a project they work on at home.
I write all kinds of weird things at home, some work, some don't, and some get shelfed for a couple of years.Unfortunatly? where I work I have to produce a useable product in a time-frame, so a reasonable predictable development model is needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Darwin awards?
It's called a tumble dryer.
I haven't had a look (should do really) but I'm sure that there are guidelines for xml document implementations.
Now if word did generate dosuments like that (not that words xml is great) then it would just go to show that Microsoft are being cuntish.
XML &co.. (xslt,xpath,css,x...) are good for formatting and changing the kind of data you get in documents: access all, maniulate all.
Xml is only good because of all the 'technoliges' that have been build around it.
xslt
xml.
What's all this about screens, why the hell isn't he expecting projection onto the back of the retina.
What computer games, everything you do on a computer will be like a game.
So are they going to make half the police force redundant?
a) Why would I need to write you a check, I can give you cash, goods, services etc... and why would I want a bank account, pay me in cash, goods , services please.
b) I buy alcohol for minors all the time, and I know lots of minors who get other people to buy them cigs.
c) If my family want to find me they will report me missing, or come looking. I tell them where I am, and they don't need to see id.
So, there is no reason for ID, unless you are the suspitions or criminal type.
I know who I am, why do I need a piece of plastic to tell me, and why the hell should you care.
It is not that I do wrong things, it is that you may think I am doing them, so I'd rather not feed your fertile imagination with my personal details.
Ok, it all seems a bit weird to a European that the government can do stuff like that, but why do they need to.
Are we (in Europe) really crap at catching people or:
Do they want to catch everyone that makes the slightest error.
Is there a big problem in the US that requires data-mining compared to Europe.
Are you just crap at catching people in the US and need data-mining.
Are you planning on sacking half of the police force when data-mining by a couple of terminal operators catches everyone.
Help, it all seems like freaky big brother overkill, isn't a measure of civilisation 'the less you need to spy on your neighbour the more civilized you are'
I could never pick up a reception on my cell phone in my house, or in a lot of other places masked by hills.
Jesus,
Try signed logons, and a centralised key database.
Abusers get there key removed.
as I can't use third party air bags in my car.
.....
Well I suppose I could replace them with better ones that wouldn't burn me, but hell they came with the car and
On the other hand pro-drivers will replace there air bags.
It is usually to refer to a neuter member of the human race as masculine (man,he etc..) and a neuter object as feminine (her,she etc...)
sine the author was intent in using the feminine for the programmer I would assume that the programmer was non-human, a machine.
there's nothing wrong with that if you use XML like I do,
So that packet of data can be transformed and fed into something else.
Each client must have:
Some shit hot rendering software that probably won't be worth running on joe computer.
Enough[shit loads of] information about the scene to render a frame.
Yeh, great idea, just give me a copy of Maya and a few complete models and textures from Shrek 3 and I'll buy a nice fat pc to render it all on.
for big iron, and anything but x86.
Wince when did IBM make money [real money] selling software?
I'm proposing , more-or-less the same solution as your
better method
except filtering should be applied at the first possible opertunity based upon how much you trust the certificates of the senders.
In your 'better solution' what's to stop spammers changing keys all the time unless you have to pay someone for the key who then assigns you a level of trust.
At the moment the servers are artificially slow:
A lot of the email is junk (spam).
and all the emails need to be filtered.
A potential solution could be to assign levels of trust to servers by allowing the servers to sign messages sent from them.
If you don't have any trust then your treated as a potential spammer, so your emails are delayed by all the spam.
If you do have trust then you skip the spam filters, or are only party to low level spam filters. so your emails are sent at near optimal speed(optimal speed being: no filtering in place).
You could set up different trust levels, most companies will never send spam, unless they are hacked, so they can be highly trusted.
If a spammer hacks a site then they should be dealt with.
More open companies like hotmail(who have some potential for spam),if they can mange to keep there spam levels down, get a high trust level, otherwise they get a medium, low or nill trust level.
Joe blogs could apply for a low level of trust and be dealt with if they spam.
Everyone else gets treated as potential spam,it's still open, we just don't trust you because you could be a spammer(which is exactly what happenes at the moment).
Because the filtering is based on a simple trust algorithm the overall overhead of scanning mail for spam goes down, speeding even the spammers up.
Breach of trust would be more legally binding than the current spam climate, so spammers wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they breached or forged trust.
Why not, do tell.
Lets say that there are a few thousand trusted parties,(shouldn't be too hard to set up).
They are the top email servers (apart from spammers).
Any mail from the servers gets priority delivery. (you know that it's really is from the servers because they've signed the message).
Everything else (sorry all you who run sendmail/postfix at home), gets slow tracked, along with the spam.
If a trusted sender is found to be sending span there trust certificate is removed and they get slow tracked.
Known spammers could be put in the even slower mail delivery pool.
Why not sign email, at the mail routers and gateways.
Email from large organizations could then be given priority (you'd know who it was by the signiture).
If an organizations starts spamming remove there signiture from the trust list.
there are no such things as stupid users, only stupid programs.
Apple, that smart computer for stupid people.
no-one ever got sacked for a weird design soliution in a project they work on at home.
I write all kinds of weird things at home, some work, some don't, and some get shelfed for a couple of years.Unfortunatly? where I work I have to produce a useable product in a time-frame, so a reasonable predictable development model is needed.