The problem with this is that now we have Yet Another Process Which Periodically Iterates My Entire File System.
Okay, first off, YAPWPIMEFS is a horrible acronym, and you'll never get funding for a project with that name.
Secondly, part of me agrees with you, but most of me thinks that I'd rather have my computer iterating my file system than having to do it myself. After all, that's why I pay it the big bucks.
And I don't see how this is remotely new. Apple has had Sherlock since OS 8, and Find File since well before that. Microsoft has had the Find command on the Start menu since Windows 95. Where's the beef?
Well if you used Smart Folders and set up a query by meat type, you wouldn't have to ask that question, now would you?
I've not seen it in action yet, but I'm under the impression that Smart Folders operates like Smart Playlists in iTunes, i.e. it doesn't move the files, it creates a view of them as if they were all together, kind of analogous to an SQL query.
It's pretty easy to make empty promises with a product that won't even be released until next year.
Uhh, no. It's not easy at all. They merely make it *look* easy because they've got an R&D budget larger than the Pentagon's and over two decades of practice.
Windows XP keeps your desktop from becoming overly clutterled with icons you haven't used recently, which makes searching your desktop *much* easier. Clearly, they are the TRUE innova[tt]ors here.
And if that's not enough, the second core should drastically improve that little doggie's performance.
Yep. Highway 17 through South Carolina is notorious as well. Between Myrtle Beach and Charleston you do 70 for a while, then 55, then 45, then 35, then 60, then 45, etc. It gets to the point that you're worried more about missing a change than watching the road.
Good tip, thanks. Surprisingly, even without disabling all that, it played flawlessly on my 533mhz G4 tower with 1GB RAM. The side scrolling was lagging and jerky, but audio was perfect.
Just disabled all the silent effects; CPU is still pegged, but the visuals (side scrolling, VU meters, etc.) are still laggy but (I think, could be placebo) somewhat better.
See, I agree with the desire to associate a unique identifier with the typical first/last name combo. There are simply too damn many John Smiths. I just think that the current system is a horrible kludge, and these leaks of peoples' SSNs illustrate that clearly. We're not gonna move away from numbers and go back to ambiguous first/last name combos, so we oughta do it right. That means either patching up the existing identifier system (as I've suggested in my original post) or creating an entirely new numbering system, which I think is an order of magnitude less likely.
No, it's not illegal. A non-governmental agency can ask you for your SSN. You are under no legal obligation to give it to them. However, they are under no legal obligation to do business with you if you decline. Two caveats: almost all government employees *are* legally prohibited from asking for your SSN, and some state legislatures have recently jumped into the fray, but what I've said above is true at the national level.
If you've got someone's SSN on screen, why ask for it?
You misread that part. I was referring to having their credit card details, yet they get sketchy about the SSN. And yes, as many have already pointed out, in our current, deeply flawed system, the SSN does need to be guarded much more closely than a single credit card number.
The reason I mentioned it is that the vast majority of people that I deal with who get paranoid about the whole SSN thing do not understand the subtleties involved, and if pressed hard enough on the reasons for refusing to divulge their SSN, would eventually boil it down to "because then you could get my credit card number!" THAT is why we laugh about it at work, and why I mentioned it.
But an SSN was never ment to be used as a unique identifyer in any information system other thenthe revenue service. Period!
Quite true. But unfortunately, a non-secret unique identifier became more and more necessary, and when society didn't provide one, the SSN was utilized by more and more entities until it became the standard identifier, leaving us with the current mess.
Pray tell, what do you do when you encounter a student that doesn't even posess your "*required*" SSN? Tell them shey can't attend?
Nope, we're very understanding about it when it comes to people who either don't have an SSN or refuse to divulge it. I happily create an alternative key in the system for that student, and then explain to them how the lack of a valid SSN will impact them. Other schools in our industry might not accept the training if it is not linked to a valid SSN, potentially causing them to repeat the course at a training center that requires a *verified* SSN. Some facilities that require the training we offer prior to entry and have therefore sent the student to us, require a valid SSN for their records, and will not accept training records from us without it.
So in other words, we bend over backwards to make things work without an SSN when needed. But in some cases, all of which are outside our sphere of influence, that's not possible.
Now lose the attitude, you monkey juggling fucktard.
First, they would then be assigned a unique ID by every orginazation that provides training, negating the benefit of a consistent/persistent identifier.
Second, it's what the industry standardized on long ago, and is therefore totally out of our hands. Yes, I realize that's not a logical answer in the big picture sense of things, but when I'm asked this day to day by students, many of whom think it's *our* decision to require the SSN, I have to explain it this way.
Take the existing nine digit SSN. Decree that to be your no-longer-secret unique identifier. Everybody who already has that, already has that.
Then issue everybody a secret. Four digit PIN, ATM style, ninety six digit alphanumeric hash of your Y chromosome, whatever. The very few entities with a legitimate need for the newly issued secret number can then be given that.
Seems like maybe you're interpreting my original post to mean that anybody should be using the newly issued SSN secret password as a password to any other system, and I don't mean that at all. If a system requires the use of your existing, 20th century nine digit SSN as a passphrase, it's already broken.
What I mean is that the electric company needs my nine digit SSN to tell one John Smith from another. Fine, they can keep using that number in that manner. That's by far the most common use of the SSN today. Under the improved system that I'm proposing, that could continue unaltered. The only people that would need to alter their systems in the slightest are the vanishingly small number that actually need the SSN as a secret password. In fact, even my employer wouldn't need the secret portion, as they are simply reporting that a taxpayer (hopefully) of such and such a number made this much money in this manner during this time period.
So under this improved system, you'd need to divulge the secret portion to apply for credit, manage your Social Security benefits, or do things that actually involve gaining access to your personal financial structure and making changes to it. Basically, the way it was intended all along, except that the designers of the system didn't foresee that the secret number they were issuing would become a de facto unique identifier, and that therefore two numbers (one public, one secret) would need to be issued.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this is that now we have Yet Another Process Which Periodically Iterates My Entire File System.
Okay, first off, YAPWPIMEFS is a horrible acronym, and you'll never get funding for a project with that name.
Secondly, part of me agrees with you, but most of me thinks that I'd rather have my computer iterating my file system than having to do it myself. After all, that's why I pay it the big bucks.
And I don't see how this is remotely new. Apple has had Sherlock since OS 8, and Find File since well before that. Microsoft has had the Find command on the Start menu since Windows 95. Where's the beef?
Well if you used Smart Folders and set up a query by meat type, you wouldn't have to ask that question, now would you?
I've not seen it in action yet, but I'm under the impression that Smart Folders operates like Smart Playlists in iTunes, i.e. it doesn't move the files, it creates a view of them as if they were all together, kind of analogous to an SQL query.
Nobody puts more features in to MS windows applications than anybody else.
You might be right, but those guys at Gator/Claria sure gave 'em a run for their money.
How does their functionality compare to locate?
They'd be roughly equivalent if you could pipe locate to your GPU.
And for the stuff that falls under multiple categories, which folder should that go in?
[cue "but what about symlinks?" responses]
It's pretty easy to make empty promises with a product that won't even be released until next year.
Uhh, no. It's not easy at all. They merely make it *look* easy because they've got an R&D budget larger than the Pentagon's and over two decades of practice.
Windows XP keeps your desktop from becoming overly clutterled with icons you haven't used recently, which makes searching your desktop *much* easier. Clearly, they are the TRUE innova[tt]ors here.
And if that's not enough, the second core should drastically improve that little doggie's performance.
Wow, the Mac fanbois have *no* sense of humor today, do they? Yeah, rhetorical question.
Yep. Highway 17 through South Carolina is notorious as well. Between Myrtle Beach and Charleston you do 70 for a while, then 55, then 45, then 35, then 60, then 45, etc. It gets to the point that you're worried more about missing a change than watching the road.
It's not Windows.
I'm going to go outside now and wash my boxter s.
Wow, you must have a *huge* cock.
Don't forget to wash that, too.
Good tip, thanks. Surprisingly, even without disabling all that, it played flawlessly on my 533mhz G4 tower with 1GB RAM. The side scrolling was lagging and jerky, but audio was perfect.
Just disabled all the silent effects; CPU is still pegged, but the visuals (side scrolling, VU meters, etc.) are still laggy but (I think, could be placebo) somewhat better.
My my my, aren't we the angry Windows user?
Are you thinking of the Richard Cheese version? Could be that Weird Al did a cover as well, but he usually avoid songs with "bad" words.
Hah! Made ya say it!
Either that or they had enough sense not to hit it from within the company's network.
Best Post Today!
It's only lunchtime, most of slashdot isn't even out of bed yet. Give it time.
One accordian solo, coming right up!
And now that I think about it... what sort of cowbell samples does GarageBand come with?
See, I agree with the desire to associate a unique identifier with the typical first/last name combo. There are simply too damn many John Smiths. I just think that the current system is a horrible kludge, and these leaks of peoples' SSNs illustrate that clearly. We're not gonna move away from numbers and go back to ambiguous first/last name combos, so we oughta do it right. That means either patching up the existing identifier system (as I've suggested in my original post) or creating an entirely new numbering system, which I think is an order of magnitude less likely.
No, it's not illegal. A non-governmental agency can ask you for your SSN. You are under no legal obligation to give it to them. However, they are under no legal obligation to do business with you if you decline. Two caveats: almost all government employees *are* legally prohibited from asking for your SSN, and some state legislatures have recently jumped into the fray, but what I've said above is true at the national level.
If you've got someone's SSN on screen, why ask for it?
You misread that part. I was referring to having their credit card details, yet they get sketchy about the SSN. And yes, as many have already pointed out, in our current, deeply flawed system, the SSN does need to be guarded much more closely than a single credit card number.
The reason I mentioned it is that the vast majority of people that I deal with who get paranoid about the whole SSN thing do not understand the subtleties involved, and if pressed hard enough on the reasons for refusing to divulge their SSN, would eventually boil it down to "because then you could get my credit card number!" THAT is why we laugh about it at work, and why I mentioned it.
But an SSN was never ment to be used as a unique identifyer in any information system other thenthe revenue service. Period!
Quite true. But unfortunately, a non-secret unique identifier became more and more necessary, and when society didn't provide one, the SSN was utilized by more and more entities until it became the standard identifier, leaving us with the current mess.
Pray tell, what do you do when you encounter a student that doesn't even posess your "*required*" SSN? Tell them shey can't attend?
Nope, we're very understanding about it when it comes to people who either don't have an SSN or refuse to divulge it. I happily create an alternative key in the system for that student, and then explain to them how the lack of a valid SSN will impact them. Other schools in our industry might not accept the training if it is not linked to a valid SSN, potentially causing them to repeat the course at a training center that requires a *verified* SSN. Some facilities that require the training we offer prior to entry and have therefore sent the student to us, require a valid SSN for their records, and will not accept training records from us without it.
So in other words, we bend over backwards to make things work without an SSN when needed. But in some cases, all of which are outside our sphere of influence, that's not possible.
Now lose the attitude, you monkey juggling fucktard.
Two reasons:
First, they would then be assigned a unique ID by every orginazation that provides training, negating the benefit of a consistent/persistent identifier.
Second, it's what the industry standardized on long ago, and is therefore totally out of our hands. Yes, I realize that's not a logical answer in the big picture sense of things, but when I'm asked this day to day by students, many of whom think it's *our* decision to require the SSN, I have to explain it this way.
Take the existing nine digit SSN. Decree that to be your no-longer-secret unique identifier. Everybody who already has that, already has that.
Then issue everybody a secret. Four digit PIN, ATM style, ninety six digit alphanumeric hash of your Y chromosome, whatever. The very few entities with a legitimate need for the newly issued secret number can then be given that.
Seems like maybe you're interpreting my original post to mean that anybody should be using the newly issued SSN secret password as a password to any other system, and I don't mean that at all. If a system requires the use of your existing, 20th century nine digit SSN as a passphrase, it's already broken.
What I mean is that the electric company needs my nine digit SSN to tell one John Smith from another. Fine, they can keep using that number in that manner. That's by far the most common use of the SSN today. Under the improved system that I'm proposing, that could continue unaltered. The only people that would need to alter their systems in the slightest are the vanishingly small number that actually need the SSN as a secret password. In fact, even my employer wouldn't need the secret portion, as they are simply reporting that a taxpayer (hopefully) of such and such a number made this much money in this manner during this time period.
So under this improved system, you'd need to divulge the secret portion to apply for credit, manage your Social Security benefits, or do things that actually involve gaining access to your personal financial structure and making changes to it. Basically, the way it was intended all along, except that the designers of the system didn't foresee that the secret number they were issuing would become a de facto unique identifier, and that therefore two numbers (one public, one secret) would need to be issued.