Have you read any of the information about what the government wants to put in their databases? Maybe that's why you're not concerned. Just yesterday there was an article or a comment with a link to some government official saying we should require them for over the counter medicine purchases. And the government is specifically trying to get all the data stored in one giant database, according to previous attempts at this. That's the point of it being a Federal program rather than state-run.
Sure, it's possible that it could be done with just a picture on your social security card, but how is that any different than just carrying your social and a driver's license?
More to the point, again I ask, why does the government need any of that? It won't make anything more secure, and all it does is remove one more layer of citizen rights.
FTA-- Security awareness programs also offer a high rate of return, Tippett said. "Employee training sometimes gets a bad rap because it doesn't alter the behavior of every employee who takes it," he said. "But if I can reduce the number of security incidents by 30 percent through a $10,000 security awareness program, doesn't that make more sense than spending $1 million on an antivirus upgrade that only reduces incidents by 2 percent?"
He specifically states that companies should reconsider spend $1 million on an antivirus/security upgrade when they could spend $10K and get a much better return on their investment. He's not trying to win customers by being sneaky.
This is a joke right? Why would a National ID make it easier to find out about you? You answered your own question... because it consolidates whatever information they want to gather in one place. Presumably a place that will not charge employers, insurance agencies, whatever, for the right to view that information. Yes most information is available in some form or another now, but people have to dig for it, or pay for it. That alone makes the information less valuable because it costs something to get it. Sure the information is generally more valuable than the cost, but that's irrelevant because there is incentive not to bother with finding the information. A National ID will remove the incentive and just make your information, public, whether you want it that way or not. And let's not even get into the whole information security side of consolidating all information about a person in one place. There's no encryption strong enough to keep people out of a goldmine like that and once it's:"cracked" there is very little recourse you can do to protect yourself ever again and there's a whole lot you have to do to try and "clear your name" so to speak if someone decides to screw with your credit/steal your identity/whatever.
Finally, while I'm generally a paranoid individual, the government has no idea about the lives of most people, though they wouldn't find it hard to get a very clear idea of any one person. My question to you is why make it that much easier for the government, or anyone else, to get that information? What good will it do you?
Interesting thought. I know one of my parents is good at languages (generally speaking) and the other was horrible, but my twin sister and I are both fairly good at them. I don't have any idea whether we spoke English (our first language) early or not.
Just to put it into perspective, I've heard both "goed" and "playses" from multiple children, including my own. I don't think there was every really any question as to whether or not children learn through "data mining", which is why so many of the comments are basically "duh... calling it a new name doesn't add anything to our knowledge of it."
I agree entirely, though my fiance doesn't like it. She thinks they should start with basic concepts, rather than "words you won't use" but I've found most of the phrases (I'm learning Mandarin now) very useful in developing vocabulary as well as grammar.
So you're using a grammatical "rule" (not splitting your verb) as an example of how we learn? I think you missed something, or maybe I just missed your point.
Exactly. I wouldn't allow anyone to speak to my daughter (12 now) in "baby talk" and when she was two she was speaking in complete (and understandable) sentences. People always asked how she spoke so well and the only answer I could come up with was that we treated her like an intelligent person when speaking to her, rather than a toy that was somehow incapable of understanding us.
Definitely worth it to teach languages. Learn with your children. Mine spoke Korean before she spoke English (Korean is my third and my ex-wifes first language) but then we let it slide as she got older. She still understands some Korean now but doesn't speak it. But she speaks fluent Spanish and is now learning French and Chinese as well as trying to pick up on the Korean. Starting them young is a good thing.
I don't know why everyone assumes the tiger has to clear the wall entirely. I've seen domestic cats jump across a 15 foot room "bounce" off the wall on the other side and use it as a "spring board" up to a nine foot ceiling to swat bugs, and other critters that got into the house. It's completely feasible that a tiger can do the same thing. (We've all seen video of large cats "running up" trees on discovery channel or similar video sources.)
The cat doesn't have to convert all level velocity to vertical and they certainly don't have to attain enough height to clear the wall completely. I'd guess (and it's just a guess) that a 10' cat (full length averages between 7 and 12 feet) could hit a 20 foot wall at about half height and "spring" up enough to get itself over the top of the wall.
Sometimes it's not that simple. When was the cage built? My fiance's company did several enclosures for the National Zoo in DC, one of which was designed to hold bull elephants. When they tried to find out how much force a charging bull elephant can inflict on a wall, there was no data. They figured a simple F=MA type calculation, but how do you "average" strength? There's no way to do it, and it's very difficult to account for things like how much power a rutting bull can bring to bear against a wall.
Obviously the enclosure doesn't meet modern safety guidelines, but I'd wager those guidelines weren't in place when the enclosure was built. So how do you determine the priority for upgrading enclosures to meet modern guidelines?
I think you'll find any decent lawyer will also bring into the discussion the fact that the group responsible for oversight of safety for the zoo just provided them with an acceptable safety rating, despite knowing that the wall was lower than the recommended height.
It's conceivable that the zoo was not at fault (legally) because they weren't forced to shut down the tiger exhibit and update it to meet current safety standards. They didn't break any mandates that they add further safety precautions, they hadn't received any bad marks (that I'm aware of) and they were allowed to remain open.
Yeah because drinking underage obviously implies your parents didn't do their job. Whatever. I agree, they should know better than taunting anyone or anything but don't try to make it like their parents were awful parents because the kids were drinking.
Despite what slashdot seems to think, most people don't have jobs they can "telecommute" to do. That means you have to live within something like a reasonable distance of your place of employment. And, as someone else mentioned, the places with cheap housing either don't have the jobs, or have salaries commensurate with the cost of living, so you're still in the same position, the numbers are just lower.
What's next? A broader support base; in users, vendors, and monetary support across the board. With more support come more advancements under the hood as well as better applications. With more advancements, the gaps in market share will also drop a few percent more over time, possibly more than a few percent. Then the end-user will really have true choice.
It's nice that you think spending money just because "things change" is a good choice for you, but that doesn't fly for everyone. I'd dare say it doesn't fly for most people. Sure hardware does have to get upgraded every once in a while, but why do it just to upgrade an OS that doesn't provided anything you don't already have? Why not wait until you need something the OS provides or your hardware fails? Just because something is inexpensive now compared to a year or two ago doesn't make it a good choice to buy when you don't need it, especially for businesses.
I'm with you, I hate that phrase. Perception isn't reality. Perception is marketing, and marketing can be changed.
I liked Vista but the machine I had it on (a new laptop that shipped with Vista) wasn't capable of functioning properly with Vista installed. It was simply too slow to run any modern applications and that isn't acceptable. I liked the interface though, and I can see people coming around to it after some service packs are released, unless MS actually releases Windows 7 when they say they're going to release it.
I believe the grandparent was talking about comparing linux to OS X, not WinXP. And just out of curiousity, what version of linux allows you to work while it's installing? I'm seriously asking, because I was just install ing Ubuntu, and that wasn't possible on the version of 7.10 that I have.
Yes, but hiring a PI, is by nature, a "secretive" act. It's not highly publicized, and the person being investigated usually doesn't know about it. This is pure intimidation, nothing more.
It's hard to measure "energy" of a conventional weapon, but a one kiloton weapon yields approximately 4.2e12 Joules of energy so this current weapon seems about 1/3 as powerful as 1 kiloton of dynamite.
Most modern missiles travel in the 2-3 Mach speed range, and longer range missiles like Tomahawks and such are often subsonic. Therefore, whether the impact is as large or not, these projectiles, whatever they are, will be much harder to defend against.
Even just F=MA for any reasonable mass of metal will provide enough force to seriously damage a ship or structure. Add explosives of any kind and you can bet these things will be very effective weapons, as long as they can be aimed and fired quickly.
You may know something about rockets as some of your posts imply, but you really have no idea how to make a profitable company. You simply don't put all your money into cutting edge research unless you're willing to lose it all. Companies that are privately funded generally don't get repeat funding if they lose all the money that was invested initially.
If these cutting edge companies that you mention, SpaceX, SeaLaunch, etc, don't produce anything, where will your space travel be then? The same place it is today; nowhere. If, however, an incremental design succeeds, whether the initial designs advance cutting edge technology or not, the whole industry gets advanced. Then there will be more money spent on cutting edge R&D, more venture capital dumped into the industry to fund companies like you want. More jobs, cheaper costs, better success rates, everyone wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read any of the information about what the government wants to put in their databases? Maybe that's why you're not concerned. Just yesterday there was an article or a comment with a link to some government official saying we should require them for over the counter medicine purchases. And the government is specifically trying to get all the data stored in one giant database, according to previous attempts at this. That's the point of it being a Federal program rather than state-run.
Sure, it's possible that it could be done with just a picture on your social security card, but how is that any different than just carrying your social and a driver's license?
More to the point, again I ask, why does the government need any of that? It won't make anything more secure, and all it does is remove one more layer of citizen rights.
FTA-- Security awareness programs also offer a high rate of return, Tippett said. "Employee training sometimes gets a bad rap because it doesn't alter the behavior of every employee who takes it," he said. "But if I can reduce the number of security incidents by 30 percent through a $10,000 security awareness program, doesn't that make more sense than spending $1 million on an antivirus upgrade that only reduces incidents by 2 percent?"
He specifically states that companies should reconsider spend $1 million on an antivirus/security upgrade when they could spend $10K and get a much better return on their investment. He's not trying to win customers by being sneaky.
This is a joke right? Why would a National ID make it easier to find out about you? You answered your own question... because it consolidates whatever information they want to gather in one place. Presumably a place that will not charge employers, insurance agencies, whatever, for the right to view that information. Yes most information is available in some form or another now, but people have to dig for it, or pay for it. That alone makes the information less valuable because it costs something to get it. Sure the information is generally more valuable than the cost, but that's irrelevant because there is incentive not to bother with finding the information. A National ID will remove the incentive and just make your information, public, whether you want it that way or not. And let's not even get into the whole information security side of consolidating all information about a person in one place. There's no encryption strong enough to keep people out of a goldmine like that and once it's :"cracked" there is very little recourse you can do to protect yourself ever again and there's a whole lot you have to do to try and "clear your name" so to speak if someone decides to screw with your credit/steal your identity/whatever.
Finally, while I'm generally a paranoid individual, the government has no idea about the lives of most people, though they wouldn't find it hard to get a very clear idea of any one person. My question to you is why make it that much easier for the government, or anyone else, to get that information? What good will it do you?
Whould that not be 'wary' instead of 'weary'?
Apparently spell checkers are not only not as effective as people think, but they're not bothered with as often as some people think.
Interesting thought. I know one of my parents is good at languages (generally speaking) and the other was horrible, but my twin sister and I are both fairly good at them. I don't have any idea whether we spoke English (our first language) early or not.
Just to put it into perspective, I've heard both "goed" and "playses" from multiple children, including my own. I don't think there was every really any question as to whether or not children learn through "data mining", which is why so many of the comments are basically "duh... calling it a new name doesn't add anything to our knowledge of it."
I agree entirely, though my fiance doesn't like it. She thinks they should start with basic concepts, rather than "words you won't use" but I've found most of the phrases (I'm learning Mandarin now) very useful in developing vocabulary as well as grammar.
So you're using a grammatical "rule" (not splitting your verb) as an example of how we learn? I think you missed something, or maybe I just missed your point.
Exactly. I wouldn't allow anyone to speak to my daughter (12 now) in "baby talk" and when she was two she was speaking in complete (and understandable) sentences. People always asked how she spoke so well and the only answer I could come up with was that we treated her like an intelligent person when speaking to her, rather than a toy that was somehow incapable of understanding us.
Definitely worth it to teach languages. Learn with your children. Mine spoke Korean before she spoke English (Korean is my third and my ex-wifes first language) but then we let it slide as she got older. She still understands some Korean now but doesn't speak it. But she speaks fluent Spanish and is now learning French and Chinese as well as trying to pick up on the Korean. Starting them young is a good thing.
Hey, now I know who to complain to. Those damn pills don't do anything, you liar.
I'll give you drilling, but data mining? Nah...
I don't know why everyone assumes the tiger has to clear the wall entirely. I've seen domestic cats jump across a 15 foot room "bounce" off the wall on the other side and use it as a "spring board" up to a nine foot ceiling to swat bugs, and other critters that got into the house. It's completely feasible that a tiger can do the same thing. (We've all seen video of large cats "running up" trees on discovery channel or similar video sources.)
The cat doesn't have to convert all level velocity to vertical and they certainly don't have to attain enough height to clear the wall completely. I'd guess (and it's just a guess) that a 10' cat (full length averages between 7 and 12 feet) could hit a 20 foot wall at about half height and "spring" up enough to get itself over the top of the wall.
Sometimes it's not that simple. When was the cage built? My fiance's company did several enclosures for the National Zoo in DC, one of which was designed to hold bull elephants. When they tried to find out how much force a charging bull elephant can inflict on a wall, there was no data. They figured a simple F=MA type calculation, but how do you "average" strength? There's no way to do it, and it's very difficult to account for things like how much power a rutting bull can bring to bear against a wall.
Obviously the enclosure doesn't meet modern safety guidelines, but I'd wager those guidelines weren't in place when the enclosure was built. So how do you determine the priority for upgrading enclosures to meet modern guidelines?
I think you'll find any decent lawyer will also bring into the discussion the fact that the group responsible for oversight of safety for the zoo just provided them with an acceptable safety rating, despite knowing that the wall was lower than the recommended height.
It's conceivable that the zoo was not at fault (legally) because they weren't forced to shut down the tiger exhibit and update it to meet current safety standards. They didn't break any mandates that they add further safety precautions, they hadn't received any bad marks (that I'm aware of) and they were allowed to remain open.
Yeah because drinking underage obviously implies your parents didn't do their job. Whatever. I agree, they should know better than taunting anyone or anything but don't try to make it like their parents were awful parents because the kids were drinking.
Despite what slashdot seems to think, most people don't have jobs they can "telecommute" to do. That means you have to live within something like a reasonable distance of your place of employment. And, as someone else mentioned, the places with cheap housing either don't have the jobs, or have salaries commensurate with the cost of living, so you're still in the same position, the numbers are just lower.
What's next? A broader support base; in users, vendors, and monetary support across the board. With more support come more advancements under the hood as well as better applications. With more advancements, the gaps in market share will also drop a few percent more over time, possibly more than a few percent. Then the end-user will really have true choice.
It's nice that you think spending money just because "things change" is a good choice for you, but that doesn't fly for everyone. I'd dare say it doesn't fly for most people. Sure hardware does have to get upgraded every once in a while, but why do it just to upgrade an OS that doesn't provided anything you don't already have? Why not wait until you need something the OS provides or your hardware fails? Just because something is inexpensive now compared to a year or two ago doesn't make it a good choice to buy when you don't need it, especially for businesses.
I'm with you, I hate that phrase. Perception isn't reality. Perception is marketing, and marketing can be changed.
I liked Vista but the machine I had it on (a new laptop that shipped with Vista) wasn't capable of functioning properly with Vista installed. It was simply too slow to run any modern applications and that isn't acceptable. I liked the interface though, and I can see people coming around to it after some service packs are released, unless MS actually releases Windows 7 when they say they're going to release it.
I believe the grandparent was talking about comparing linux to OS X, not WinXP. And just out of curiousity, what version of linux allows you to work while it's installing? I'm seriously asking, because I was just install ing Ubuntu, and that wasn't possible on the version of 7.10 that I have.
Yes, but hiring a PI, is by nature, a "secretive" act. It's not highly publicized, and the person being investigated usually doesn't know about it. This is pure intimidation, nothing more.
It's hard to measure "energy" of a conventional weapon, but a one kiloton weapon yields approximately 4.2e12 Joules of energy so this current weapon seems about 1/3 as powerful as 1 kiloton of dynamite.
Most modern missiles travel in the 2-3 Mach speed range, and longer range missiles like Tomahawks and such are often subsonic. Therefore, whether the impact is as large or not, these projectiles, whatever they are, will be much harder to defend against.
Even just F=MA for any reasonable mass of metal will provide enough force to seriously damage a ship or structure. Add explosives of any kind and you can bet these things will be very effective weapons, as long as they can be aimed and fired quickly.
Unless your doing business in a shady manner, why on earth would you cite "legal reasons" for not backing up your email?
Damn! I hate being caught in a mistake. I mixed up two of my comments... you got me.
You may know something about rockets as some of your posts imply, but you really have no idea how to make a profitable company. You simply don't put all your money into cutting edge research unless you're willing to lose it all. Companies that are privately funded generally don't get repeat funding if they lose all the money that was invested initially.
If these cutting edge companies that you mention, SpaceX, SeaLaunch, etc, don't produce anything, where will your space travel be then? The same place it is today; nowhere. If, however, an incremental design succeeds, whether the initial designs advance cutting edge technology or not, the whole industry gets advanced. Then there will be more money spent on cutting edge R&D, more venture capital dumped into the industry to fund companies like you want. More jobs, cheaper costs, better success rates, everyone wins.