So since you use a powerful, bold disclaimer, if you accidentally omit it sometime, does your previous use of the disclaimer then imply that you are giving legal advice when you omit it?
There is some hope of maintaining independent calibration of the radar gun, your jolly officers can increase the apparent speed by standing a little closer together or using a quick thumb on the clock.
There is a fair chance that the getting sad over when you were born is an innate characteristic of you, rather than an actual result of when you were born.
So if you were 16 or whatever, you would be sad that you missed the era of drinking and driving, or something like that (I guess you still missed it, I am a little older than you an also missed it, but the point is that you would probably find something to lament).
That doesn't stop Officer Smash from breaking the camera, but he would have to explain why the camera broke just before the unarmed suspect was shot multiple times.
I sort of resent it when it is obvious that they have been instructed on what to say; I don't have a problem with the manager coaching them to show interest in providing good service and trying to hire such people, I just don't like it when a supposedly social greeting comes out of their mouth mixed up with an attitude that they feel obligated to do it.
You are reading too much into the study. They gave the subjects 100 mg and did some tests, and then 1.5 hours after the first dose, they gave them another 150 mg.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant when I said I didn't think it was crazy to expect the plans to last for more than a month.
On the other hand, Apple has never really been famous for their transparency, or their unwillingness to charge yesterday's customer a vastly different price than today's, and AT&T isn't exactly famous for their customer-first attitude.
Yes, how terrible that they are changing the terms that they are offering to new customers. Vile. Just vile.
I guess it's a bit of a bummer for the people that paid extra for the 3G with the idea that they might activate it only now and then, but I'm not sure they should have expected the terms to last forever (but expecting the terms to last for more than a month probably isn't crazy).
Then obviously you aren't human and you have no need of books.
I'm simply advocating that both the designers and users of systems think of their thumbprint like a slip of paper with their name written on it (an id card is very similar to this, except the people who made the card have gone to some varying amount of trouble to be able to know if they are the ones who wrote the name). So if you would not give someone a dollar just because they have a piece of paper with the correct name on it, you probably shouldn't give them a dollar just because they have the correct thumbprint.
According to the internet, empathy among young people is lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
It also says they spend all their time on the Facebook and sending text messages and playing video games, so I'm not sure I believe they would go to all the trouble of lifting fingerprints.
Well, you can only ever try to abandon old identities, if an associate recognizes you, they recognize you.
The way I see it, biometrics should not be treated as strong identity tokens, because it creates situations where they become valuable to mimic (or even worse, remove from the body of the person) and once they have been copied, they are not revocable or renewable (it may be possible to start over by replacing an entire system that operates with a higher degree of fidelity). So if my bank says "All you have to do is put in your fingerprint and money comes out of the ATM" I will run away and find a new bank, but if my library says "All you have to do is put in your fingerprint and it acts just like your library card", I'm not real worried about it.
Glancing through that blog, I don't see it as despicable or lacking integrity to try to manage or create separate identities, but I also don't see it as societies obligation to ensure that it is straightforward to repudiate a past identity (and the argument sort of falls apart a bit when you consider just how many actors and musicians of recent vintage don't use their given names...).
I don't don't think we disagree all that much, but I would say that I don't believe biometrics should be relied upon, for precisely the reason you give, they can't be changed.
The difference is that I think they can still be used, in situations where it isn't particularly important that they identify someone correctly.
You would be better off agitating for legal protections on databases containing PII, screaming "NOOOOO" every time someone decides to make one isn't going to work.
If Wikipedia is accurate, in the U.S., you can just start using a new name, as long as you do it in good faith. A court order may be necessary to convince banks and such of the change, and there are apparently some limitations on the form of the new name
Right. They are easy to get hold of, so they should not be relied on for important things.
And it situations like a criminal trial, they should not be given excessive weight, and a defense attorney should have ample opportunity to talk about why they might not matter in a given situation (that sounds awfully similar to what we do...).
Do you think there should be a law against people collecting aliases?
You seem to think I am awfully blase about protecting fingerprints. You're right. Because we leave them every-fucking-where. What I am not blase about is treating fingerprints as if they carry a lot of weight -- and this system does not treat fingerprints as if they are perfect, it uses them in place of a library card.
Slashdot Mirror
So since you use a powerful, bold disclaimer, if you accidentally omit it sometime, does your previous use of the disclaimer then imply that you are giving legal advice when you omit it?
Or is it so much puffery?
There is some hope of maintaining independent calibration of the radar gun, your jolly officers can increase the apparent speed by standing a little closer together or using a quick thumb on the clock.
There is a fair chance that the getting sad over when you were born is an innate characteristic of you, rather than an actual result of when you were born.
So if you were 16 or whatever, you would be sad that you missed the era of drinking and driving, or something like that (I guess you still missed it, I am a little older than you an also missed it, but the point is that you would probably find something to lament).
No, seriously. They have a product that the cop wears to record their actions, it features a secure chain of evidence:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4271213
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERAXON.aspx
That doesn't stop Officer Smash from breaking the camera, but he would have to explain why the camera broke just before the unarmed suspect was shot multiple times.
Bureaucracies that generate tedium and frustration are a major problem of modern society, not a good idea.
Yeah, back in the days when rape was barely considered a crime holding the door open for strangers was a lot safer.
I sort of resent it when it is obvious that they have been instructed on what to say; I don't have a problem with the manager coaching them to show interest in providing good service and trying to hire such people, I just don't like it when a supposedly social greeting comes out of their mouth mixed up with an attitude that they feel obligated to do it.
If you follow this line of reasoning, the only way to be genuine is to never notice the impact that it has.
You are reading too much into the study. They gave the subjects 100 mg and did some tests, and then 1.5 hours after the first dose, they gave them another 150 mg.
Coffee drinkers don't have to go that slow.
Smallpox.
If you have any appreciation for the diversity of life, then it is inherently a bad thing to reduce it.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant when I said I didn't think it was crazy to expect the plans to last for more than a month.
On the other hand, Apple has never really been famous for their transparency, or their unwillingness to charge yesterday's customer a vastly different price than today's, and AT&T isn't exactly famous for their customer-first attitude.
Yeah, sure.
But we can ask the question: Is our wanton destruction of many of the ecosystems on earth a desirable thing?
Quibbling over whether it is properly described as natural or not sort of misses the point.
Yes, how terrible that they are changing the terms that they are offering to new customers. Vile. Just vile.
I guess it's a bit of a bummer for the people that paid extra for the 3G with the idea that they might activate it only now and then, but I'm not sure they should have expected the terms to last forever (but expecting the terms to last for more than a month probably isn't crazy).
Does the passport office not recognizing the new name mean that you are using it illegally?
Or do yo mean that it is a good test for whether a name has been legally changed?
Well, Smokescreen needs to hit parity with the native client before you can decide if they are competing with it.
Then obviously you aren't human and you have no need of books.
I'm simply advocating that both the designers and users of systems think of their thumbprint like a slip of paper with their name written on it (an id card is very similar to this, except the people who made the card have gone to some varying amount of trouble to be able to know if they are the ones who wrote the name). So if you would not give someone a dollar just because they have a piece of paper with the correct name on it, you probably shouldn't give them a dollar just because they have the correct thumbprint.
According to the internet, empathy among young people is lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
It also says they spend all their time on the Facebook and sending text messages and playing video games, so I'm not sure I believe they would go to all the trouble of lifting fingerprints.
Well, you can only ever try to abandon old identities, if an associate recognizes you, they recognize you.
The way I see it, biometrics should not be treated as strong identity tokens, because it creates situations where they become valuable to mimic (or even worse, remove from the body of the person) and once they have been copied, they are not revocable or renewable (it may be possible to start over by replacing an entire system that operates with a higher degree of fidelity). So if my bank says "All you have to do is put in your fingerprint and money comes out of the ATM" I will run away and find a new bank, but if my library says "All you have to do is put in your fingerprint and it acts just like your library card", I'm not real worried about it.
Glancing through that blog, I don't see it as despicable or lacking integrity to try to manage or create separate identities, but I also don't see it as societies obligation to ensure that it is straightforward to repudiate a past identity (and the argument sort of falls apart a bit when you consider just how many actors and musicians of recent vintage don't use their given names...).
I don't don't think we disagree all that much, but I would say that I don't believe biometrics should be relied upon, for precisely the reason you give, they can't be changed.
The difference is that I think they can still be used, in situations where it isn't particularly important that they identify someone correctly.
You would be better off agitating for legal protections on databases containing PII, screaming "NOOOOO" every time someone decides to make one isn't going to work.
If Wikipedia is accurate, in the U.S., you can just start using a new name, as long as you do it in good faith. A court order may be necessary to convince banks and such of the change, and there are apparently some limitations on the form of the new name
Right. They are easy to get hold of, so they should not be relied on for important things.
And it situations like a criminal trial, they should not be given excessive weight, and a defense attorney should have ample opportunity to talk about why they might not matter in a given situation (that sounds awfully similar to what we do...).
You don't actually need to go to court.
Do you think there should be a law against people collecting aliases?
You seem to think I am awfully blase about protecting fingerprints. You're right. Because we leave them every-fucking-where. What I am not blase about is treating fingerprints as if they carry a lot of weight -- and this system does not treat fingerprints as if they are perfect, it uses them in place of a library card.
So how frequently do you think it would actually happen?