The article seems to be more about pushing a solution of a central ID system as a presumed solution to the identity theft problem, even though it was the requirement that SSN's be associated with financial accounts that began the whole problem. Specifically:
"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID, which means private institutions and even the federal government itself have had to improvise."
What's needed is better anonymity not increased centralized identity. On top of that, to the extent identity is needed, it should be more complex and IDs should be unique from one entity (e.g., bank) to another. If there is any centralized requirement, it should be identity policy and protocols, not the identity!
While it is true that authentication becomes an issue you can avoid despite an identity being public, the proliferating of common identities such as SSNs seems to be a catalyst for identity theft. The last thing I want is another government issued identity I cannot change or revoke that all my valuable assets become tied to.
Did anyone else catch this bias?
The best way to protect our assets is through anonymity. No one who steals identifying information such as SSNs, birthdates and phone numbers should be able to locate and steal the assets belonging to that person. A Universal ID helps thieves, not us.
Prove it. I saw an alleged post by such yesterday. It was just a guy wearing a t-shirt making a joke. This isn't "fake news" cuz it is a joke, not news. When did making jokes become "election interference". When did FREE SPEECH become a threat?
The concept that there is a "problem" is premised on several notions:
- Only those in the US should have free speech on the Internet.
- US readers are unable to think for themselves and scrutinize. They need a protective overlord.
What would be more acceptable is tagging content that has certain attributes, then letting readers do what they wish with such tagged content. In fact, instead of debating what algorithms or filters FB, Twitter or any other potential big brother should have, how about letting readers customize their own algorithms and be empowered to control what they see in their feeds? Why isn't this concept being proposed?
I have one of the first HSPA+ ("4G") phones, the T-mobile G2, and it still works 100%. But, it seems lately that getting a solid 4G connection is getting harder in the same places I've been using it for years. Shouldn't it be improving?
Obviously, the carriers benefit from phone upgrades, too, as they are he primary retailers of them.
History has shown that the strong governments get, the more corrupt they become (power corrupts). Yet, they can hit a point where the people can no longer hold their government accountable (e.g., Stalin). So, how, with technology advancing, and the government having access to it all while the people have limited access, can you prevent corruption in the future?
That's what I was thinking. You have Centos in production, but now decide you want RHEL support. Why should you have to choose between reinstalling your production environment, or just giving RHEL their money and being done with it? I suspect that RH will remove this barrier to paying or support by offering support for Centos.
Those of us who've been using Centos understand that if you use it to deploy, and ultimately in your data center, often in place of Windows, then it is just a matter of time before you begin to use RHEL to get support for at least their mission critical production boxes. Centos and RHEL are a nice mix. So, this definitely makes sense for RH. Plus, they have nothing to lose since Centos thrives with or without their endoresment.
Yet, the back and forth relationship RH has taken over the years with the community-driven open source from which it was born and has built its business suggests that, despite this move, they only seem to consider relationships that produce pofits from no more than one degree of separation. This makes the end to this very long estrangement, where Centos only referred to Redhat as the "upstream provider" to keep RedHat's trademark legal team at bay, just plain-old WEIRD.
The question is, how will RH help Centos? That isn't very clear from this announcement.
But the companies themselves are not suing Google themselves, and are not claiming that Google infringes any of their products. In fact, these patents could apply to things for which no product exists, or could be so general, that nearly all products in that category use them. Unless you are claiming that another company is hurting your sales, you are a patent troll. Rockstar has no product sales and will not bring up the sales of its shareholders in court.
Either way, they are trying to dodge accountabilty by using a shell company to sue. Besides hiding, they limit their own liability should Google prevail. Rockstar is clearly setup with one purpose -- to sue with impunity.
Why do two theives work together on a heist? Sony, plain and simple, has pushed patented solutions where they have a licensing interest over open ones that are not patent encumbered for as long as I can remember, such as MPEG over VP9.
Considering that Sony doesn't have much hope in phones and tablets with Android, and their hardware interests go far beyond that into things like camcorders and blu ray players, taking down Android would return us to a world of large patent licensing fees in products.
It's too bad because if Sony ever supported the better codecs and containers, such as MKV, H264 and VP9, then their devices would be highly competitve.
I bet it uses more electricity each night as time progresses.
If they are connected to the Internet, then the next question is what percent of SPAM originates from the Tesla Model S?
In addition to that, I think we should decrease the # of years to 5 for all but pharmaceuticals, the poster child of patents. For that industry, 15 years.
You have to create a position that threatens the establishment if you want to gain momentum because only then will they be motivated to compromise to protect their interests.
Great post! I remember BP Solar, a division of BP, in the 1990s, always investing to bring down the cost of solar, yet, never quite bringing it down enough to replace oil.
1> On what basis does he conclude that private enterprises cannot invest that much? The first question I have is cannot or will not? That said, I've seen them invest plenty over the years to bring down the price of solar and bring wind production to the world. They problem is that the ROI for the past 20 years has not been as high as hoped. Who says the ROI on deficit spending will be any better?
2> Until we eliminate our deficit, does it make sense to spend money on non-essential high risks?
-
That said, if we are going to subsidize an industry, I'd rather see it go into research than something like Ethanol production. The question is, how, in today's world, or tomorrow's world, can you guarantee this can help America? What's the detailed plan for turning this research into an American benefit? I understood how this worked 50 years ago. I'm not sure I understand how it is supposed to work today with global companies, and China and Europe investing a lot in this.
Slashdot Mirror
Eye witness testimony? Great. It is a good thing we never had a problem with false accusers and poor perception.
If it succeeds they won't need a banking relationship.
The article seems to be more about pushing a solution of a central ID system as a presumed solution to the identity theft problem, even though it was the requirement that SSN's be associated with financial accounts that began the whole problem. Specifically:
"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID, which means private institutions and even the federal government itself have had to improvise."
What's needed is better anonymity not increased centralized identity. On top of that, to the extent identity is needed, it should be more complex and IDs should be unique from one entity (e.g., bank) to another. If there is any centralized requirement, it should be identity policy and protocols, not the identity!
While it is true that authentication becomes an issue you can avoid despite an identity being public, the proliferating of common identities such as SSNs seems to be a catalyst for identity theft. The last thing I want is another government issued identity I cannot change or revoke that all my valuable assets become tied to.
Did anyone else catch this bias?
The best way to protect our assets is through anonymity. No one who steals identifying information such as SSNs, birthdates and phone numbers should be able to locate and steal the assets belonging to that person. A Universal ID helps thieves, not us.
They will probably sue wikileaks for publishing benchmarks now.
Thanks for this news! Just switched to DuckDuckGo.
Prove it. I saw an alleged post by such yesterday. It was just a guy wearing a t-shirt making a joke. This isn't "fake news" cuz it is a joke, not news. When did making jokes become "election interference". When did FREE SPEECH become a threat?
The concept that there is a "problem" is premised on several notions: - Only those in the US should have free speech on the Internet. - US readers are unable to think for themselves and scrutinize. They need a protective overlord. What would be more acceptable is tagging content that has certain attributes, then letting readers do what they wish with such tagged content. In fact, instead of debating what algorithms or filters FB, Twitter or any other potential big brother should have, how about letting readers customize their own algorithms and be empowered to control what they see in their feeds? Why isn't this concept being proposed?
is not long
I have one of the first HSPA+ ("4G") phones, the T-mobile G2, and it still works 100%. But, it seems lately that getting a solid 4G connection is getting harder in the same places I've been using it for years. Shouldn't it be improving? Obviously, the carriers benefit from phone upgrades, too, as they are he primary retailers of them.
The new Sony appeal process. https://www.youtube.com/user/s...
History has shown that the strong governments get, the more corrupt they become (power corrupts). Yet, they can hit a point where the people can no longer hold their government accountable (e.g., Stalin). So, how, with technology advancing, and the government having access to it all while the people have limited access, can you prevent corruption in the future?
That's what I was thinking. You have Centos in production, but now decide you want RHEL support. Why should you have to choose between reinstalling your production environment, or just giving RHEL their money and being done with it? I suspect that RH will remove this barrier to paying or support by offering support for Centos.
Those of us who've been using Centos understand that if you use it to deploy, and ultimately in your data center, often in place of Windows, then it is just a matter of time before you begin to use RHEL to get support for at least their mission critical production boxes. Centos and RHEL are a nice mix. So, this definitely makes sense for RH. Plus, they have nothing to lose since Centos thrives with or without their endoresment.
Yet, the back and forth relationship RH has taken over the years with the community-driven open source from which it was born and has built its business suggests that, despite this move, they only seem to consider relationships that produce pofits from no more than one degree of separation. This makes the end to this very long estrangement, where Centos only referred to Redhat as the "upstream provider" to keep RedHat's trademark legal team at bay, just plain-old WEIRD.
The question is, how will RH help Centos? That isn't very clear from this announcement.
But the companies themselves are not suing Google themselves, and are not claiming that Google infringes any of their products. In fact, these patents could apply to things for which no product exists, or could be so general, that nearly all products in that category use them. Unless you are claiming that another company is hurting your sales, you are a patent troll. Rockstar has no product sales and will not bring up the sales of its shareholders in court.
Either way, they are trying to dodge accountabilty by using a shell company to sue. Besides hiding, they limit their own liability should Google prevail. Rockstar is clearly setup with one purpose -- to sue with impunity.
Why do two theives work together on a heist? Sony, plain and simple, has pushed patented solutions where they have a licensing interest over open ones that are not patent encumbered for as long as I can remember, such as MPEG over VP9.
Considering that Sony doesn't have much hope in phones and tablets with Android, and their hardware interests go far beyond that into things like camcorders and blu ray players, taking down Android would return us to a world of large patent licensing fees in products.
It's too bad because if Sony ever supported the better codecs and containers, such as MKV, H264 and VP9, then their devices would be highly competitve.
I bet it uses more electricity each night as time progresses. If they are connected to the Internet, then the next question is what percent of SPAM originates from the Tesla Model S?
If they sold it on silk road, and they accepted BTC as payment, then it would have a chance.
Nor is assassination. Glad to see /. use the right word. Are we ever going to hear a politician speak intelligently?
To be fair to the journalists, it wasn't them doing the rounding: Conservation of Protein Structure over Four Billion Years.
OK, then, let's look at the first sentance of the summary of the source:
"Little is known about the evolution of protein structures and the degree of protein structure conservation over planetary time scales."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of this protein?!?
Anti-matter rules!
In addition to that, I think we should decrease the # of years to 5 for all but pharmaceuticals, the poster child of patents. For that industry, 15 years. You have to create a position that threatens the establishment if you want to gain momentum because only then will they be motivated to compromise to protect their interests.
Great post! I remember BP Solar, a division of BP, in the 1990s, always investing to bring down the cost of solar, yet, never quite bringing it down enough to replace oil.
-
1> On what basis does he conclude that private enterprises cannot invest that much? The first question I have is cannot or will not? That said, I've seen them invest plenty over the years to bring down the price of solar and bring wind production to the world. They problem is that the ROI for the past 20 years has not been as high as hoped. Who says the ROI on deficit spending will be any better?
2> Until we eliminate our deficit, does it make sense to spend money on non-essential high risks?
-
That said, if we are going to subsidize an industry, I'd rather see it go into research than something like Ethanol production. The question is, how, in today's world, or tomorrow's world, can you guarantee this can help America? What's the detailed plan for turning this research into an American benefit? I understood how this worked 50 years ago. I'm not sure I understand how it is supposed to work today with global companies, and China and Europe investing a lot in this.
Would a Windows 3.1 machine with 3737 days uptime do the trick?