I think people with that many concerns about government would better spend their time agitating to make sure it does not become powerful, rather than trying to control their fingerprints (I sure don't find gloves to be particularly comfortable).
I really don't see what difference you see between a name and a thumbprint, they are both essentially public information that is roughly tied to a certain person. I suppose there is some raving-loony scenario where a nefarious criminal manages to pull a thumbprint out of the database and plant it at a crime scene with other corroborating evidence during a time period where the owner of the thumbprint does not have a decent alibi, but I don't find myself breaking into a sweat over it.
What are your concerns? The system stores a hash of the fingerprint, as long as it is not completely brain dead there will be no way to use the information in the system to construct a fingerprint, and any library they use is likely already keeping a record of the books they check out.
There really is a fundamental difference between traditional surveillance and cheap, mass technological data collection (At a minimum, cost!). It makes sense to acknowledge that difference in our laws, rather that just spitting on people when they don't understand how pervasive the monitoring is, or what the full implications of their actions may be.
I think many of the people screaming loudest about the street view data collection never understood that Google was intentionally and unapologetically logging the SSIDs.
I didn't become more fundamentalist, I've never made the choice to associate myself with Facebook, so I should hardly start pretending that they speak for me.
We certainly learned something about some of our neighbors.
If you are driving 500 miles or more in a day, your time is probably costing you more than 20% in excess fuel prices (and that much excess seems sort of unlikely to me).
I certainly pay attention to the various fuel prices I see, but I don't go out of my way to save $2.50 if I forget to buy cheap when it is convenient.
Yes, 10 billion gallons could make a film that covered the ocean. But if it is all making a film, then it isn't washing up on beaches and killing the krill. And much of it would degrade and boil off (like, more than 1/2 of it, given that we are talking about this well taking more than 10 years to leak that much).
I'm not trying to downplay the damage that is being done to the gulf, I'm dismissing histrionics about this potentially killing all the whales.
The regulation makes more sense in the Canadian situation, where the drilling season only lasts for a few months, and they might have to wait several months before even starting to respond to a blow out.
It doesn't sound like our viewpoints are all that far apart, my response to the other poster was phrased the way it was because they had also made a rather absolute statement.
Fortunately it is not especially transmissible and most people that are undergoing treatment are at least somewhat responsible about not exposing others.
Yes, it is an oversimplification. But the oceans are huge. 10 billion gallons spread over the 335 million square kilometers of ocean surface would have an average depth of 0.00012 millimeters (yes, that's right, 0.12 microns).
Of course, that is still an oversimplification, because it will not spread evenly over the entire surface of the ocean (but much of it will degrade, boil off or mix into deeper water). But it does at least start to put the numbers into some sort of context.
And that's the nothing goes right for many years scenario, the more likely scenario is that they limit the spilled oil to several hundred million gallons. Which is still a huge freaking disaster, especially in the gulf, but anyone worrying about the future of sea life in general is being irrational.
Why? I'm not enthusiastically hoping that 10 billion gallons of oil spew into the oceans, I'm pointing out that it probably won't kill sea life as we know it.
Also, can I put chemical dispersants into the tub?
Slashdot Mirror
I think people with that many concerns about government would better spend their time agitating to make sure it does not become powerful, rather than trying to control their fingerprints (I sure don't find gloves to be particularly comfortable).
The librarians got lazy.
I really don't see what difference you see between a name and a thumbprint, they are both essentially public information that is roughly tied to a certain person. I suppose there is some raving-loony scenario where a nefarious criminal manages to pull a thumbprint out of the database and plant it at a crime scene with other corroborating evidence during a time period where the owner of the thumbprint does not have a decent alibi, but I don't find myself breaking into a sweat over it.
Do you think there is a high risk of students lifting fingerprints in order to steal books?
What are your concerns? The system stores a hash of the fingerprint, as long as it is not completely brain dead there will be no way to use the information in the system to construct a fingerprint, and any library they use is likely already keeping a record of the books they check out.
Thumbprints are personally identifiable. That does not make them private.
Or are you wearing latex gloves right now?
Or is it that you think the library should be prevented from keeping a record of the students that they have loaned books out to?
Thumbprints shouldn't be treated as sensitive personal information, they are too hard to control.
You've said that half a dozen times or so.
There really is a fundamental difference between traditional surveillance and cheap, mass technological data collection (At a minimum, cost!). It makes sense to acknowledge that difference in our laws, rather that just spitting on people when they don't understand how pervasive the monitoring is, or what the full implications of their actions may be.
I think many of the people screaming loudest about the street view data collection never understood that Google was intentionally and unapologetically logging the SSIDs.
It is probably worth pointing out that lots of grains self pollinate, so the threat is more to food variety than it is to food supply.
I blame Apple for the coming increase in suicide rates at competing factories.
If it helps, those are often called inchworms.
The problem is that there really are plenty of moderate, reasonable people that self identify as Muslim.
I suppose you might be able to make an argument that they can't be reasonable and identify themselves as Muslim, but I think it would be pretty thin.
Of course, those are not really the people running Islamic countries.
I didn't become more fundamentalist, I've never made the choice to associate myself with Facebook, so I should hardly start pretending that they speak for me.
We certainly learned something about some of our neighbors.
It's quite likely that they can offer a hefty discount and still make a profit on the transaction.
They aren't going to be facing extreme cold in Alaska in July:
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USAK0197
If you are driving 500 miles or more in a day, your time is probably costing you more than 20% in excess fuel prices (and that much excess seems sort of unlikely to me).
I certainly pay attention to the various fuel prices I see, but I don't go out of my way to save $2.50 if I forget to buy cheap when it is convenient.
Yes, 10 billion gallons could make a film that covered the ocean. But if it is all making a film, then it isn't washing up on beaches and killing the krill. And much of it would degrade and boil off (like, more than 1/2 of it, given that we are talking about this well taking more than 10 years to leak that much).
I'm not trying to downplay the damage that is being done to the gulf, I'm dismissing histrionics about this potentially killing all the whales.
The regulation makes more sense in the Canadian situation, where the drilling season only lasts for a few months, and they might have to wait several months before even starting to respond to a blow out.
It doesn't sound like our viewpoints are all that far apart, my response to the other poster was phrased the way it was because they had also made a rather absolute statement.
Indeed.
HIV adapts to antivirals.
Fortunately it is not especially transmissible and most people that are undergoing treatment are at least somewhat responsible about not exposing others.
Yes, it is an oversimplification. But the oceans are huge. 10 billion gallons spread over the 335 million square kilometers of ocean surface would have an average depth of 0.00012 millimeters (yes, that's right, 0.12 microns).
Of course, that is still an oversimplification, because it will not spread evenly over the entire surface of the ocean (but much of it will degrade, boil off or mix into deeper water). But it does at least start to put the numbers into some sort of context.
And that's the nothing goes right for many years scenario, the more likely scenario is that they limit the spilled oil to several hundred million gallons. Which is still a huge freaking disaster, especially in the gulf, but anyone worrying about the future of sea life in general is being irrational.
And how much risk is there that it will make things worse?
Well, do you think such a regulatory change would actually cause gas prices to double in 4 years?
Why? I'm not enthusiastically hoping that 10 billion gallons of oil spew into the oceans, I'm pointing out that it probably won't kill sea life as we know it.
Also, can I put chemical dispersants into the tub?
It's implied in my first post, but I'll make it explicit: That's where the strong survive by eating the flesh of the weak, right?
It isn't particularly obvious to me that we can make enough calories without putting a lot of energy into agriculture.