A couple of batteries and you can shoot thousands of shots.
And with a few 5-packs of 36-exposure 35mm film for about $15: you can take half a thousand shots,
which is probably all you really need anyways.
What happens with digital SLRs; is, there is no real explicit limit to the number of shots, so people are encouraged to be wasteful and not very careful in setting up their shot, anyways.
When you are careful and judicious with your shots. 200 exposures of 35mm lasts weeks or months, and still gets every pictures you really wanted, anyways; while the 2000 exposures of DSLR gets you a lot of just-because pictures, that you'll be sorting through and be not much interested in later.
You can also recharge them in the car, or even from a portable solar system. Or plug them into local power
All of these require your camera to be idle and powered off for long periods of time. When you might need it powered on; while you are sitting with your camera running and pointing at the almost perfect scene, waiting for just the right element to change, to hit the shutter.
Imagine you are out on an expedition in the wilderness, and:
(1) Your car is back at the lodge, and
(2) There is no local power,
(3) You are tracking the elusive [Insert name of animal], and,
(4) At any point during your trip, there can be a moment where it is vital to the ultimate success of your mission that you can point your camera, focus, and shoot, and have the picture in less than 10 seconds at any time,
(5) This means you need your camera, essentially at the ready 95 to 100% of the time, no waiting for it to power back on. Even while you are at camp.
A manual 35mm camera doesn't need 30 seconds to be powered back on, because you shut it off to save power. A 35mm camera can be kept at the ready to shoot at an instant's notice 8 hours a day without having to power off the viewfinder and screen to save it from discharging.
Since your 35mm camera doesn't need power to be up on standby, and ready to shoot the instant you push the button; it has a considerable advantage in one respect.
The film SLR doesn't need 3 hours to recharge the batteries.
There is little downtime.... the only servicing that is required, is occassionally to swap out a finished film cassette, and load new film, and you have clear warning on the exposure display: of when that's going to happen.
So if you know you're within 4 exposures of the end; you do have an option of loading a new roll at that point.
With batteries..... you can never be too sure, how far you will get with them: you have no clue in advance how many pictures you will be able to take ------- it depends on how long you have to leave the camera on fully powered, before you get a chance to take the shots you want.
start with a filmy and process it yourself. Therefore, the darkroom is actually a way of maintaining privacy
How can you be sure the lens on your analog camera doesn't have "micro defects" designed to implant a unique
fingerprint on the image, which can then be used to identify the serial number of the camera, and.... therefore....
who owns it?
and if you want to really be sure of what's in the file, the binary format is quite straightforward.
Unless that's just the primary copy, and there's a "hidden" copy watermarked across the entire image
with lossy error correction, so that the data can be recovered by 3-letter agencies, even after you crop the image.
Having and following a policy are the only requirement. It doesn't have to be a rational policy, it just has to be a policy.
I think 'small' must be very small here. This makes it difficult to do business.
Also... while some enterprises can pick their own record retention periods; federal entities don't have this luxury, the legal requirement laid upon them by statute is to retain the complete set of all records ---- obviously printing damages the record by rendering the contents unsearchable, causing possible corruption loss of information, particularly regarding metadata, or the state of each bit in the attachments and message header.
Very often vital information will be in an e-mail message which will be needed beyond 30 days; sometimes an order might take 30 days from creation to shipment, sometimes the only copy of an invoice or a bill, and records of accounting department activities which need to be kept for 7 years, might be in an e-mail message. There may be important organization information; details about the network, intellectual property, stored nowhere else, except the employee's fallible brains.
The old e-mail might be vital for defending a case made against the company.
Or it might be vital for prosecuting a lawsuit against other individuals or companies;
without the content of the e-mail, for example, there might be no evidence that an employee sent out the trade secrets.
You can never be too sure that an employee didn't export a copy of some messages to their hard drive,
tablet, or PC at home: messages, which might be required to be produced to satisfy an order.
that an email on someone elses computer came from the shown recipient ?
Seeing as the IRS is running Exchange. It is very convincing if an e-mail is in their mailbox showing a certain sender.
The forensic analyst will be able to analyze the mail object more closely and find the X500 or X.400 address of the sender.
Since generating such a message from the mail server requires Send As security permission, and use of Send As can show up in the audit trails; this is quite difficult to forge.
They could also corroborate by reviewing the copy of the mailboxes on the mail server, which are even more secure.
In the private sector.... it is industry standard that enterprises ARCHIVE every message that goes in and out of their system. They do this automatically, for security and compliance reasons, and they have retention policies that govern the destruction of e-mail, so they can always answer legal requests made of them.
It seems like the IRS has ignored standard minimal industry security standards and found a complete end run around records laws, by maintaining a policy that seems to intentionally avoid creating records in machine-readable format, AND that doesn't make anything a permanent record, unless the employee who sent the message decides that it is worthy and preserves it by
PRINTING IT, and filing it with the papers.
This essentially GUARANTEES, that if e-mails are ever requested, there are going to be some lost....
routine hard drive failures can cause it to happen, if there was an oversight: and the employee accidentally failed to recognize that a crucial message needed to be kept as a record, OR if the employee maliciously decided to withold the e-mail from the printed record, so they could delete it later at any time they wanted, or press a big "PANIC" button and format the hard drive, before the formal orders came in to deliver records, if the staffer suspected they would come under intense scrutiny in a few months.
So, we are dealing with a (minor) weakness in the standard mining tools.
Perhaps so. Keep in mind; if the miners did have to communicate with the pools constantly and synchronously with their mining,
it could slow down their mining, and therefore give them a competitive disadvantage.
On the other hand... the insertion of an additional "status reporter/cheating detector/squealing engine/preemptive information sharing mechanism" could serve to partially mitigate risks that they unwittingly assist a large pool in conducting an attack.
Actually.... if the cheat detection was setup in this manner; it's suddenly difficult to imagine just exactly what an attack from a large pool would have to consist of ---- without persuading a majority of miners not to run cheat protection, in order to be successful.
So if someone is making minimum wage and lives in a shitehole red state, you're saying it is fine for them to spend 1/4 to 1/3 their weekly salary on a shot, instead of, I don't know, food or rent?
If you're going to try and compare the cost to a recurring cash flow, then you need to calculate the amount attributable to the same period.
The shots are approximately $0.15 a day, over 4 years.
You can't even buy a potato for that: I am afraid.
And as previously mentioned... even in a red state, for most low income families, this is already $0.
If you are mining without communicating with the rest of the bitcoin network, you are putting somebody else in charge of that communication, which means you are giving somebody the power to cheat.
I agree with that, but I believe 98% of miners are using standard mining tools which communicate with the selected pool only; the mining pool has connections to the network, but the miners themselves don't have direct communications with a node on the bitcoin peer to peer network.
By the way... running a full blown bitcoind requires a lot of RAM,
so I don't think most individual miners even have a node on the network.
What i'd like to see happen is a pool cross-submission scheme,
where: instead of miners having just one pool configured, they have at least 3 configured, and:
while they may only be requesting work units from 1 pool; they could send a 'heads up' to all the secondary pools, when a new block is detected...
The 'secondary pools' ought to allow these unsolicited valid blocks to be received, and then relayed to their own Bitcoin network nodes.
Furthermore.... they could add a mechanism for miners to query information about the current block, and alert the other pools: if for some reason, there is a disagreement about which block is the most recent one in the blockchain.
you also need all miners in the pool to conspire to perform the attack?
You need most miners to either conspire or to not notice.
To avoid conspiring; they have to detect that an attack is occuring and pull their hashing power out.
The pool essentially has control of what work the miners are being assigned, however.
A 51% premining attack would look like this:
(1) A miner in the pool discovers a block.
(2) Instead of the pool broadcasting the solution, it saves a copy of the solution, and starts
distributing to miners work units for coming up with the _next_ block, without broadcasting the solution.
It ignores a solution that any of the other pool's come up with
(3) The miners solve the following block; instead of broadcasting the solution, the pool saves
the solution, and starts working on the next one....
Because the pool has more than 51% of the hashing capacity, it will eventually have mined a longer chain
of blocks than any of the other pools.
Perhaps 6 or 7 blocks later; the pool conducting the selfish mining will broadcast all the solutions it came up with.
Since the selfish pool's chain is longer than the blockchain the rest of the network came up with
(due to it having more hashing power), then the selfish pool's version will win.
A miner connected to the bitcoin network AND the pool, could in theory foil the attack.
If all the miners were designed to broadcast any solution they come up with....
not/just/ to the pool, but also to the Bitcoin network, then the mining pool would not be
able to conduct premining.
And since the pool is not in direct control of the individual miners; they couldn't necessarily
force arbitrary changes.
6 months ago GHash.IO promised they would
(1) Take steps to prevent accumulating 51% hashing power, including: not accepting new miners, and
(2) They would not attempt an attack, and (3) They would provide cex.io users an option to use another mining pool
(They have apparently not implemented (3) yet).
A DDoS against the pool was reported to occur yesterday, which adversely affected mining.
At one point... their hashrate was reported to have dropped to 7%.
Then BitFury pulled 1 PH/s out of their pool.
That link had some very bad logic. He even advocated integrating DNS into the IP stack.. WTF?!
No he didn't... perhaps you need to watch again; there's no proposal to integrate DNS into IP itself.
He merely stated that DNS is not in the network stack, it's just an add-on application, and the sockets API are broken
by forcing application code to implement the DNS lookup that they often even get wrong, which are absolutely correct assertions.
Perhaps they can't afford it? Immunizations used to be dirt cheap but these days, not so much.
The DTaP vaccine is available free of charge through state health departments particularly to low-income families and to those without without health insurance; in addition, many private doctors participate in the Vaccines for children program.
Even if it's not free the price is not particularly high; basically $50/dose for immunization against Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, and Polio; add another $60/dose for MMR.
Then personal choices would not put other people at risk, only the people that opt out would take their chances.
This seems like no more a 'personal choice', than a choice to not pay taxes.
Or to run an unsecured computer on the internet, or open e-mail proxy, that spammers can abuse.
The thing is... a person's 'personal' choice to be vulnerable to a contagion will always put other people at risk, unless they have a 100% quarantine, since once you are infected, you have provided the contagion a place to fester and evolve, that is -- to randomly mutate, and if any of the mutations turns out to have increased resistance against the vaccine, you have provided the contagion the tools needed to defeat the vaccine.
We do require; the problem is many states allow an exemption for personal beliefs.
The vaccination should be required regardless of beliefs or conscientious objection by the parents, because
other People's safety is at risk.
Furthermore... if the reason for exemption is medical; this should require at least two healthcare officials to
verify it and sign off on it, and there should be a requirement to renew the certification every year.
Also, the immunization certificates should have conspicuous expiration dates before the next booster is needed
for each vaccine, and schools should be required to verify these annually.
The certificate should also be required to be admitted to an institution of higher education, to buy or own real property, to register a vehicle, to obtain airplane tickets, boarding pass, or to step into an airplane, to obtain and renew a driver's license or other ID with a stamp making it an immunization ID as well, proof of immunization (or presentation of drivers license/ID that certification is required for) should be necessary to enter publicly owned buildings where a large number of people may be present, and employers should be required to verify certificate (or require vaccination) before employing any new worker.
Obtaining social security, unemployment, welfare benefits, should also require an active immunization certificate.
In other words: there should be gates requiring citizens to have proper immunization or medical exemption from them.
That is right: our refusal to move to IPV6 is increasing our emission of greenhouse gasses
Apparently you missed the memo about how IPv6 makes this even worse.
You see everyone wants their business to be multihomed, AND every business wants PI address space, so they don't have to change their IP addresses if they switch ISPs.
And thanks to new RIR policies that apply to IPv6, everyone can get their own PI allocation,
if they just need to deploy 200 hosts, they will be able to get their Provider Independent allocation at low cost and further pollute the global routing table.
So there will likely be more IPv6 routes than IPv4 routes, and each one costs 4 times as much.
Obviously, because it's paper. Which is not immediate.
But, I didn't think you could do a debit transaction with just an imprint.
It's probably not just paper. The debit card probably has a MC/Visa logo. Mastercard/Visa/Discover have or had an "authorization call center". If the magnetic stripe on a card won't work; there's a phone number the merchant is to call in.
Give their merchant account number verbally; give the Credit card number, expiration date,
flip the card over, and read off the 7-digit number on the signature panel.
The authorization center will then verify the transaction is authorized, and reply with an "authorization id" that the cashier is to write on the sales form.
They will then take an imprint of the front of the card, to prove that it was present at the time of sale.
Just provide a locally hosted "Amazon Edition" of TrueCrypt for the purpose of setting up import/exports.
It's still great software... and sure as heck better than sending data unencrypted.
If the customer issues a chargeback, Chang's doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If the bank doesn't side with the merchant -- photographic evidence is sufficient for any court... Chang's can still manually send the customer a bill, ding their credit score if their meal ticket goes unpaid, and pursue other recourse: they can even add extra expenses to the debt incurred due to the chargeback, and possibly some interest charges and late fees on the debt...
THIS is exactly why this isn't a perfect solution! Not only do they have to use ARU which is more costly per transaction, they would have to process it as card not present as they can't imprint on the card.
They can photograph the card and prove its presence that way.
A "non-profit" that pays the CEO a million dollars.
I would encourage you to avoid libelous assertions.
The American Red Cross' published financials show the CEO makes
less than $600,000; which is less than 0.01% of the American Red Cross's annual expenses;
~90% of which are spent on programs, and ~4% are administrative overhead costs such as
administrative staff.
By the way.... if the CEO moved to a for-profit company, they could expect a minimum
of about $10 million a year plus stock options. If the ARC weren't willing to pay at least
half a million: there is basically no way they could find a decent administrator on the market.
The people who would be qualified, would simply have to go somewhere else.
To be clear: the professionals that charities have to run their organization, while they
may often donate to their own organization, they may even be so passionate about their
work that they choose to donate extra by working for a lesser amount than they would
require to be employed by a for-profit company ---- but it is not strictly true that there is a good supply
of prospective full time volunteers who would be willing to work less for the job that needs to be done, And
the workers are by no means full time "volunteers";
It would also be completely unfair to ask them to be
These people do actually require compensation to be retained full time, AND working for a lower
compensation hurts them not only financially at their current job, BUT double hurts them if they
need to switch employers, the new employer will often require their previous salary, and it
will be used as a factor in assessing them and possibly determining the maximum amount they would be offered.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of batteries and you can shoot thousands of shots.
And with a few 5-packs of 36-exposure 35mm film for about $15: you can take half a thousand shots, which is probably all you really need anyways.
What happens with digital SLRs; is, there is no real explicit limit to the number of shots, so people are encouraged to be wasteful and not very careful in setting up their shot, anyways. When you are careful and judicious with your shots. 200 exposures of 35mm lasts weeks or months, and still gets every pictures you really wanted, anyways; while the 2000 exposures of DSLR gets you a lot of just-because pictures, that you'll be sorting through and be not much interested in later.
You can also recharge them in the car, or even from a portable solar system. Or plug them into local power
All of these require your camera to be idle and powered off for long periods of time. When you might need it powered on; while you are sitting with your camera running and pointing at the almost perfect scene, waiting for just the right element to change, to hit the shutter.
Imagine you are out on an expedition in the wilderness, and: (1) Your car is back at the lodge, and
(2) There is no local power,
(3) You are tracking the elusive [Insert name of animal], and,
(4) At any point during your trip, there can be a moment where it is vital to the ultimate success of your mission that you can point your camera, focus, and shoot, and have the picture in less than 10 seconds at any time,
(5) This means you need your camera, essentially at the ready 95 to 100% of the time, no waiting for it to power back on. Even while you are at camp.
A manual 35mm camera doesn't need 30 seconds to be powered back on, because you shut it off to save power. A 35mm camera can be kept at the ready to shoot at an instant's notice 8 hours a day without having to power off the viewfinder and screen to save it from discharging.
Since your 35mm camera doesn't need power to be up on standby, and ready to shoot the instant you push the button; it has a considerable advantage in one respect.
The film SLR doesn't need 3 hours to recharge the batteries.
There is little downtime.... the only servicing that is required, is occassionally to swap out a finished film cassette, and load new film, and you have clear warning on the exposure display: of when that's going to happen.
So if you know you're within 4 exposures of the end; you do have an option of loading a new roll at that point.
With batteries..... you can never be too sure, how far you will get with them: you have no clue in advance how many pictures you will be able to take ------- it depends on how long you have to leave the camera on fully powered, before you get a chance to take the shots you want.
start with a filmy and process it yourself. Therefore, the darkroom is actually a way of maintaining privacy
How can you be sure the lens on your analog camera doesn't have "micro defects" designed to implant a unique fingerprint on the image, which can then be used to identify the serial number of the camera, and.... therefore.... who owns it?
and if you want to really be sure of what's in the file, the binary format is quite straightforward.
Unless that's just the primary copy, and there's a "hidden" copy watermarked across the entire image with lossy error correction, so that the data can be recovered by 3-letter agencies, even after you crop the image.
Not to mention running out of film when you're not done shooting
With Film SLRs you run out of film. With Digital SLRs, you run out of battery power :)
Having and following a policy are the only requirement. It doesn't have to be a rational policy, it just has to be a policy.
I think 'small' must be very small here. This makes it difficult to do business. Also... while some enterprises can pick their own record retention periods; federal entities don't have this luxury, the legal requirement laid upon them by statute is to retain the complete set of all records ---- obviously printing damages the record by rendering the contents unsearchable, causing possible corruption loss of information, particularly regarding metadata, or the state of each bit in the attachments and message header.
Very often vital information will be in an e-mail message which will be needed beyond 30 days; sometimes an order might take 30 days from creation to shipment, sometimes the only copy of an invoice or a bill, and records of accounting department activities which need to be kept for 7 years, might be in an e-mail message. There may be important organization information; details about the network, intellectual property, stored nowhere else, except the employee's fallible brains.
The old e-mail might be vital for defending a case made against the company. Or it might be vital for prosecuting a lawsuit against other individuals or companies; without the content of the e-mail, for example, there might be no evidence that an employee sent out the trade secrets.
You can never be too sure that an employee didn't export a copy of some messages to their hard drive, tablet, or PC at home: messages, which might be required to be produced to satisfy an order.
that an email on someone elses computer came from the shown recipient ?
Seeing as the IRS is running Exchange. It is very convincing if an e-mail is in their mailbox showing a certain sender. The forensic analyst will be able to analyze the mail object more closely and find the X500 or X.400 address of the sender.
Since generating such a message from the mail server requires Send As security permission, and use of Send As can show up in the audit trails; this is quite difficult to forge.
They could also corroborate by reviewing the copy of the mailboxes on the mail server, which are even more secure.
It's not a problem. For extra fees, the IRS will figure your tax, as long as you identify all sources of income.
In the private sector.... it is industry standard that enterprises ARCHIVE every message that goes in and out of their system. They do this automatically, for security and compliance reasons, and they have retention policies that govern the destruction of e-mail, so they can always answer legal requests made of them.
It seems like the IRS has ignored standard minimal industry security standards and found a complete end run around records laws, by maintaining a policy that seems to intentionally avoid creating records in machine-readable format, AND that doesn't make anything a permanent record, unless the employee who sent the message decides that it is worthy and preserves it by PRINTING IT, and filing it with the papers.
This essentially GUARANTEES, that if e-mails are ever requested, there are going to be some lost.... routine hard drive failures can cause it to happen, if there was an oversight: and the employee accidentally failed to recognize that a crucial message needed to be kept as a record, OR if the employee maliciously decided to withold the e-mail from the printed record, so they could delete it later at any time they wanted, or press a big "PANIC" button and format the hard drive, before the formal orders came in to deliver records, if the staffer suspected they would come under intense scrutiny in a few months.
So, we are dealing with a (minor) weakness in the standard mining tools.
Perhaps so. Keep in mind; if the miners did have to communicate with the pools constantly and synchronously with their mining, it could slow down their mining, and therefore give them a competitive disadvantage.
On the other hand... the insertion of an additional "status reporter/cheating detector/squealing engine/preemptive information sharing mechanism" could serve to partially mitigate risks that they unwittingly assist a large pool in conducting an attack.
Actually.... if the cheat detection was setup in this manner; it's suddenly difficult to imagine just exactly what an attack from a large pool would have to consist of ---- without persuading a majority of miners not to run cheat protection, in order to be successful.
So if someone is making minimum wage and lives in a shitehole red state, you're saying it is fine for them to spend 1/4 to 1/3 their weekly salary on a shot, instead of, I don't know, food or rent?
If you're going to try and compare the cost to a recurring cash flow, then you need to calculate the amount attributable to the same period.
The shots are approximately $0.15 a day, over 4 years. You can't even buy a potato for that: I am afraid.
And as previously mentioned... even in a red state, for most low income families, this is already $0.
If you are mining without communicating with the rest of the bitcoin network, you are putting somebody else in charge of that communication, which means you are giving somebody the power to cheat.
I agree with that, but I believe 98% of miners are using standard mining tools which communicate with the selected pool only; the mining pool has connections to the network, but the miners themselves don't have direct communications with a node on the bitcoin peer to peer network.
By the way... running a full blown bitcoind requires a lot of RAM, so I don't think most individual miners even have a node on the network.
What i'd like to see happen is a pool cross-submission scheme, where: instead of miners having just one pool configured, they have at least 3 configured, and: while they may only be requesting work units from 1 pool; they could send a 'heads up' to all the secondary pools, when a new block is detected...
The 'secondary pools' ought to allow these unsolicited valid blocks to be received, and then relayed to their own Bitcoin network nodes.
Furthermore.... they could add a mechanism for miners to query information about the current block, and alert the other pools: if for some reason, there is a disagreement about which block is the most recent one in the blockchain.
you also need all miners in the pool to conspire to perform the attack?
You need most miners to either conspire or to not notice. To avoid conspiring; they have to detect that an attack is occuring and pull their hashing power out.
The pool essentially has control of what work the miners are being assigned, however.
A 51% premining attack would look like this:
(1) A miner in the pool discovers a block.
(2) Instead of the pool broadcasting the solution, it saves a copy of the solution, and starts distributing to miners work units for coming up with the _next_ block, without broadcasting the solution. It ignores a solution that any of the other pool's come up with
(3) The miners solve the following block; instead of broadcasting the solution, the pool saves the solution, and starts working on the next one....
Because the pool has more than 51% of the hashing capacity, it will eventually have mined a longer chain of blocks than any of the other pools.
Perhaps 6 or 7 blocks later; the pool conducting the selfish mining will broadcast all the solutions it came up with.
Since the selfish pool's chain is longer than the blockchain the rest of the network came up with (due to it having more hashing power), then the selfish pool's version will win.
A miner connected to the bitcoin network AND the pool, could in theory foil the attack. If all the miners were designed to broadcast any solution they come up with.... not /just/ to the pool, but also to the Bitcoin network, then the mining pool would not be
able to conduct premining.
And since the pool is not in direct control of the individual miners; they couldn't necessarily force arbitrary changes.
It would be a diplomatic incident if China did it without seeking approval
China probably doesn't have the right password.
Not yet anyways.
6 months ago GHash.IO promised they would (1) Take steps to prevent accumulating 51% hashing power, including: not accepting new miners, and (2) They would not attempt an attack, and (3) They would provide cex.io users an option to use another mining pool (They have apparently not implemented (3) yet).
A DDoS against the pool was reported to occur yesterday, which adversely affected mining. At one point... their hashrate was reported to have dropped to 7%. Then BitFury pulled 1 PH/s out of their pool.
That link had some very bad logic. He even advocated integrating DNS into the IP stack.. WTF?!
No he didn't... perhaps you need to watch again; there's no proposal to integrate DNS into IP itself. He merely stated that DNS is not in the network stack, it's just an add-on application, and the sockets API are broken by forcing application code to implement the DNS lookup that they often even get wrong, which are absolutely correct assertions.
Perhaps they can't afford it? Immunizations used to be dirt cheap but these days, not so much.
The DTaP vaccine is available free of charge through state health departments particularly to low-income families and to those without without health insurance; in addition, many private doctors participate in the Vaccines for children program.
Even if it's not free the price is not particularly high; basically $50/dose for immunization against Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, and Polio; add another $60/dose for MMR.
Then personal choices would not put other people at risk, only the people that opt out would take their chances.
This seems like no more a 'personal choice', than a choice to not pay taxes.
Or to run an unsecured computer on the internet, or open e-mail proxy, that spammers can abuse.
The thing is... a person's 'personal' choice to be vulnerable to a contagion will always put other people at risk, unless they have a 100% quarantine, since once you are infected, you have provided the contagion a place to fester and evolve, that is -- to randomly mutate, and if any of the mutations turns out to have increased resistance against the vaccine, you have provided the contagion the tools needed to defeat the vaccine.
We do require; the problem is many states allow an exemption for personal beliefs.
The vaccination should be required regardless of beliefs or conscientious objection by the parents, because other People's safety is at risk.
Furthermore... if the reason for exemption is medical; this should require at least two healthcare officials to verify it and sign off on it, and there should be a requirement to renew the certification every year.
Also, the immunization certificates should have conspicuous expiration dates before the next booster is needed for each vaccine, and schools should be required to verify these annually.
The certificate should also be required to be admitted to an institution of higher education, to buy or own real property, to register a vehicle, to obtain airplane tickets, boarding pass, or to step into an airplane, to obtain and renew a driver's license or other ID with a stamp making it an immunization ID as well, proof of immunization (or presentation of drivers license/ID that certification is required for) should be necessary to enter publicly owned buildings where a large number of people may be present, and employers should be required to verify certificate (or require vaccination) before employing any new worker. Obtaining social security, unemployment, welfare benefits, should also require an active immunization certificate.
In other words: there should be gates requiring citizens to have proper immunization or medical exemption from them.
im one of those 15%, I'm allergic to the pertussis shot
Then the other 95% of that 15% are putting you in danger for no great reason, because they have no medical reason to not have the proper vaccinations.
That is right: our refusal to move to IPV6 is increasing our emission of greenhouse gasses
Apparently you missed the memo about how IPv6 makes this even worse. You see everyone wants their business to be multihomed, AND every business wants PI address space, so they don't have to change their IP addresses if they switch ISPs.
And thanks to new RIR policies that apply to IPv6, everyone can get their own PI allocation, if they just need to deploy 200 hosts, they will be able to get their Provider Independent allocation at low cost and further pollute the global routing table.
So there will likely be more IPv6 routes than IPv4 routes, and each one costs 4 times as much.
Obviously, because it's paper. Which is not immediate.
But, I didn't think you could do a debit transaction with just an imprint.
It's probably not just paper. The debit card probably has a MC/Visa logo. Mastercard/Visa/Discover have or had an "authorization call center". If the magnetic stripe on a card won't work; there's a phone number the merchant is to call in. Give their merchant account number verbally; give the Credit card number, expiration date, flip the card over, and read off the 7-digit number on the signature panel.
The authorization center will then verify the transaction is authorized, and reply with an "authorization id" that the cashier is to write on the sales form.
They will then take an imprint of the front of the card, to prove that it was present at the time of sale.
Just provide a locally hosted "Amazon Edition" of TrueCrypt for the purpose of setting up import/exports. It's still great software... and sure as heck better than sending data unencrypted.
If the customer issues a chargeback, Chang's doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If the bank doesn't side with the merchant -- photographic evidence is sufficient for any court... Chang's can still manually send the customer a bill, ding their credit score if their meal ticket goes unpaid, and pursue other recourse: they can even add extra expenses to the debt incurred due to the chargeback, and possibly some interest charges and late fees on the debt...
THIS is exactly why this isn't a perfect solution! Not only do they have to use ARU which is more costly per transaction, they would have to process it as card not present as they can't imprint on the card.
They can photograph the card and prove its presence that way.
A "non-profit" that pays the CEO a million dollars.
I would encourage you to avoid libelous assertions. The American Red Cross' published financials show the CEO makes less than $600,000; which is less than 0.01% of the American Red Cross's annual expenses; ~90% of which are spent on programs, and ~4% are administrative overhead costs such as administrative staff.
By the way.... if the CEO moved to a for-profit company, they could expect a minimum of about $10 million a year plus stock options. If the ARC weren't willing to pay at least half a million: there is basically no way they could find a decent administrator on the market. The people who would be qualified, would simply have to go somewhere else.
To be clear: the professionals that charities have to run their organization, while they may often donate to their own organization, they may even be so passionate about their work that they choose to donate extra by working for a lesser amount than they would require to be employed by a for-profit company ---- but it is not strictly true that there is a good supply of prospective full time volunteers who would be willing to work less for the job that needs to be done, And the workers are by no means full time "volunteers";
It would also be completely unfair to ask them to be
These people do actually require compensation to be retained full time, AND working for a lower compensation hurts them not only financially at their current job, BUT double hurts them if they need to switch employers, the new employer will often require their previous salary, and it will be used as a factor in assessing them and possibly determining the maximum amount they would be offered.