IT CAN'T REMEMBER THAT YOU WANT TO STAY LOGGED IN! That checkbox on the login page, as far as I can tell, DOES. NOTHING.
It does do something...it remembers your username so everytime you go back to the site, the username is in the box. If you don't check the box, and your browswer doesn't offer a previously used username automatically, the box will be blank and you have to enter in your username everytime to log in.
The text next to the checkbox is "Remember me" and the behavior which is occurring is reasonably well described by that. Is it useful? Enough for me to keep the box checked I guess.
What you want is a checkbox that says "Keep me logged in." They don't offer that; I'm not sure why (I don't know why they automatically log you off after 24 hours either, but hell, my webmail provider logs me off automatically ever 3 hours which is indescribably frustrating.)
As for the iPhone device, the bleak reality is that it is slightly larger than a 5G iPod.
Perhaps, but perhaps you're overestimating the size of the 5G iPod.
5G iPod 30GB= 103.5mm x 52.42mm x 11mm
Proposed iPhone= 115mm x 61 x 11.6mm
In comparison:
Motorola SLVR= 114mm x 49mm x 11mm
I use a SLVR as my cell phone, and carry it in my front jeans pocket very comfortably, even in tight jeans. I think we can generally agree that the SLVR is one of the smaller phones (if not smallest bar phone available today) and the iPhone as proposed is just 1 mm longer, 12 mm wider, and.6mm thicker. (I don't believe the extra width would translate into all that much of an issue. For comparison, RAZRs are 53-55mm wide.)
Gilmore wasn't arguing that. What he was arguing was whether the more intensive search burdened his right to travel anonymously? Does it? Well in order to figure that out, you have to balance that right to travel with whatever the government's objectives/goals were in requiring id-less passengers to undergo the more intensive security checks. In fact, the burden of going through the more intensive screening may be quite minor, so all the government has to do is show that the objectives/goals/purpose for creating that burden "weigh" more than the burden itself.
The government said "we can't tell you why we do it, cuz it's secret." The courts decided to defer to the government and not bother weighing the burden, trusting that the government weighs the burden fairly all by itself and, by extension, they retain some right to do so in some circumstances.
It's not the fact that this sorta thing hasn't happened before--it has. But typically those cases only affected a small group of people or just one person. This regulation affects a national system that carriers 100 million people yearly, so even if the burden of going through the intensive check is minor on the micro level, it builds up quickly on the macro level. It strikes me that the court did have some obligation to examine it in that context, but declined to do so.
In order to make this argument, you have to define what exactly is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." In legal dictionaries, they are considered synonymous, and "X is a privilege, whereas Y is a right" is not considered a legal concept. (I asked the head legal counsel for the Maryland MVA what does "driving is a privilege" mean (it's on the first page of the Maryland Driver's Handbook. He replied that the term is "meaningless." Indeed, in my research when Ohio passed its first law requiring a driver's license, Ohio statutes were full of language referring to "driving rights." Like "driving rights shall be given only to individuals of 14 and above..." This language has disappeared with time. Undoubtedly, driving is truly a right. Everyone has the right to a driver's license, and the state cannot deny that right except for well founded reasons which do not overly burden it.
In reality, it would be best to say that courts and legislatures look at everything as a right, all of which can be regulated in some way. The burden of the regulation is taken into account and balanced against the negative effects of preventing someone from having that right. Rights are highly contextually dependent--for instance, freedom of speech is one of the least infringed rights on the micro (individual) level, but is several times more heavily regulated at the macro level (cigarette companies can't advertise, campaign finance laws, etc.)
So in evaluating the statement...The aircraft is private property run by a private company, and as such can refuse business to any individual they wish for any reason they wish several things pop up. First, there is clearly a right to fly (operate) an airplane. Over time, this has become an enormously regulated right, particularly for airline carriers. Can an airline refuse to do business with a particular race or gender of people? Well, in the 1960's United had male only flights between Chicago and LA. In today's legal world, I suspect that even the small burden of requiring women to take a later flight would be considered infringing on their rights, and I don't think that this would be acceptable to modern courts with the legal frameworks we have. The micro level right to fly and be dealt with a business equally as all other clients (a right established by the government, who has..uhh...the right to do that sorta thing;-) trounces the airline carriers right to fly whomever, because that right is severely diminished by the laws controlling their operating environment.)
Why would anyone have wanted to create such a device?
This is the first time I've heard of the idea, but if you could have purchased a combo Beta/VHS vcr (for a few hundred more, and cheaper than buying both separately) many probably would have. Since video renting was huge at that time, but the stock that we get used to at blockbuster wasn't in place yet, the ability to play Beta or VHS would have been pretty convenient.
It was not uncommon for people to have had both.
And when they broke, you took them to a VCR/TV repair guy, who would charge you $100 to fix it, and you felt good about that, because a new one was still $400.
It'll be fine as long as Wal-Mart tells us where we can dispose of the bulbs. I changed the Xenon bulb in my car and I struggled for weeks to find a local place that could take the bulb.
The dealer changed the other one a few months back when the car was under warranty. I suspect they just threw it away.
Is it so hard to take the cue from the rest of the world, where such nonsense is not even considered (with no apparent ill effects)?
In addition to the stuff mentioned in previous posts, the industry is a Leviathan. Each drug test is enormously profitable and they continue being performed under intense lobbying by the companies that do it. Poor HR people don't stand a chance.
I have often heard that drug testing lowers insurance rates (such as worker's comp.) However, I find this is only the case when a legislature passed a law allowing for that by statute. Apparently drug testing is underwriting neutral otherwise.
i speculate that thousands years ago, prior to articfial, imaginary, political boundaries
The passport, as we know and use it, is a creation of World War I and, was, *rolls eyes* an attempt to prevent espionage. Attempts to eliminate it post World War I failed.
I think the mistake is to assume that it is genuinely useful in mitigating the issues you mentioned. I suspect that yes, you could justify the passport on marginal and anecdotal issues/evidence, but I suspect that the document is significantly more useless than we give it credit.
It's ability to protect the populace from those who want to kill us is likely as marginal as it's ability to protect us from World War I spies.
dont you need, like, a passport or something to fly into and out of the u.s.? doesnt that sorta ruin your privacy?
Considering the fact that, for thousands of years of human history, people did not require permission or documentation to cross land or sea, the passport is, at the very least, a major encumbrance on (what I consider) the human right to travel without impediment.
As for a privacy claim, if you take the point of view that privacy is the ability to restrain people from having only as much information as is needed for a particular task, then the passport is often over-designed: for a visitor to the US, it arguably only requires a photograph and an indication of citizenship (to prove citizenship but not so much information that it can "prove" identity.)
The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC
On this note, one of the more fascinating rumors that I remember hearing (a lot actually) during the late 1990s when Apple didn't have an oar to paddle with--was that Apple would build the next Mac OS around the NT kernal.
In retrospect, I find it more plausible today that they would have/could have done that than I did then.
How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?
The next time Forbes.com prints an article that is really compelling and yet is horribly handicapped by forcing the user to learn information by a slideshow interface that just plain sucks.
Even when you can operate the slideshow at your own speed, the slideshow completely refreshes the window you're looking at (I presume it's so that an article with a list can show off much more advertising than if the list were presented normally.) It's irritating on good days, painful on bad when the connection on my end or their end is slow.
Why even bother with the chip? Why even bother with the information?
I believe that RFID chip manufacturers convinced the US (specifically Department of Homeland Security) that RFID chips were the best way to prevent passport fraud/theft and ensure proper identity, so the US forced that idea on top of the rest of the world by saying that only countries issuing RFID enabled passports would be visa waiver eligible.
I guess that's what they call a failure of imagination.
It's a common failure that occurs in these scenarios.
As part of my research on driver's licensing issues, when states added photos to driver's licenses (starting in the late 60's) the word "fraud" never entered the picture. Driver's licenses were essentially fraud free documents before the photographs were added--so it really never entered anyone's mind that things would change once the document became more powerful/useful/trusted.
When the SSN card was first introduced, it was derided as a national ID card, but the proponents promised it wasn't.
On this note, one thing that just continues to amaze me is that the Social Security Administration hasn't had its ass handed to it because of major lawsuit regarding identity fraud.
The Social Security Administration is responsible for issuance of the SSN. They should know and be fully responsible for the results of that issuance and the way it is used. (Think of this in terms of a product liability lawsuit.) If the SSA wanted to prevent liability issues, they should have either worked to prevent non-SSA uses for the SSN or not issued an SSN at all.
They told me to sit about 12 minutes and my ID would be ready.
I consider 12 minutes unacceptably long. Here in Ohio, the time after the picture is taken to when the license is printed is less than 45 seconds. (The printer has a 4 color ribbon--so it passes over the license 4 times and then attaches the hologram overlay.)
Ohio and Oregon do over the counter issuance, whereas California (and a few other states) do centralized issuance. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.
Over the counter allows for immediate issuance. Centralized allows for easier upgrades to the card (all you have to do is change the machines at one location.)
Small time fraud is just as easy in an over the counter or a centralized state. However, centralized issuance makes big time fraud easier. From my calculations, California issues 25,000 to 30,000 cards per day. If you have someone who hacks the system well enough, the California DMV would never know an extra 1000 bad cards were added to the daily batch. An extra 1000 cards in an over the counter state would be very complex.
For what it's worth, compliance with the REAL ID act would basically require all states to switch to centralized issuance.
If there's a single, universal ID then the forgeries need to be much better....This raises the bar a ton as now you have to produce essentially perfect forgeries and there aren't a lot of forgers that can do that.
But the problem ends up coming around full circle. Instead of forgers in all the different states concentrating on just figuring out their own state's designs--then all the forgers nationally will be working simultaneously on the national ID card. It's not like they work alone--there is a certain amount of information sharing and synergizing going on (in fact, this happens already. While there might be 50 different state driver's licenses, there's only about 3-4 card manufacturers. If you can figure out how to do a good job on a New York Driver's license, you're 80% there for a California license.)
California has probably the most complex card to forge, and yet, it's suprisingly easy to find forged well. It's a simple problem of the fact that there is more forging effort thrown at the California card than any other state card. The more brains working on the problem, the more solutions will be found.
I couldn't agree more actually--but hypothetically, it's built to be a bit more fair in terms of reporting than the criminal justice system. That was my only point.
My big beef with the system is that the credit scoring system is so mysterious. Huge decisions are made based on your credit score, but we the citizens have only a cursory understanding of how it works.
What I want is this--full disclosure of the algorithim as well as full disclosure of what certain actions will do to the score. For instance, if I apply and receive a new credit card...when I get the card in the mail, there should be a very clear notice on the insert "Your credit score is 650. When you activate this card, with a $5k credit line, your score will become 620 because of X, Y and Z. If you use it this way and charge Q on the card, your score will become 600. If you use it this way, and do this for a period of a year, all things held the same, your score will become 660."
The relevant code section is below. Minor misdemeanor possession of marijuana is the only minor misdemeanor offense that I am aware of that is a non-public record.
ORC 2925.11
(3) If the drug involved in the violation is marihuana or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing marihuana other than hashish, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of possession of marihuana. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section, possession of marihuana is a minor misdemeanor.
(D) Arrest or conviction for a minor misdemeanor violation of this section does not constitute a criminal record and need not be reported by the person so arrested or convicted in response to any inquiries about the person's criminal record, including any inquiries contained in any application for employment, license, or other right or privilege, or made in connection with the person's appearance as a witness.
Is there any evidence that there is a correlation between that and long-past criminal convictions that aren't closely related to the kind of damage they later do?
I do background checks for a living.
I wouldn't go as far to say that it's snake oil, but I definitely think it's oversold by so-called security types.
I think they are most useful in predicting some types of violent behavior. In my experience, an individual who gets charged and convicted with domestic violence in their 50s almost always has a dozen speeding tickets, a criminal trespass conviction and maybe a disorderly conduct charge for good measure. Background checks might be useful to predict this type of potential behavior.
On the other hand, people who commit murder or sexual offenses (whether it's in their 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s) won't even have a parking ticket in their name. I feel like they just snap one day. So in this regard, background checks are worthless.
Theft and burglury and related charges are 95% of the time committed by those under 25. It just doesn't come up later in life. Background checks can be misleading in this regard.
Background checks that go back 30 or 40 years are pretty expensive (as noted in the article) and unusual. If you did your crime in the 70s I'm guaranteed not to find it.
My biggest issue is that background checks are hugely dependent on our judicial system, which doesn't operate as "cleanly" as the credit rating system, but for some reason, is treated as if it did.
Money used in defense plays a huge role in things. An extra grand or two on a lawyer might very well be the difference between being offered a plea bargain to misdemeanor 1 Theft, and being offered a plea bargain to misdemeanor 4 unauthorized use of property with the prosecutor agreeing to expunge the case in a year. (Whereas the credit rating system keeps all the records out there, what keeps criminal records around in the judicial system might have very little to do with the crime perpetrated.
How the state legislature enacted laws plays a huge role, though one the security companies like to dismiss. For instance, my state of Ohio has probably the nation's most liberal marijuana possession laws--anything under 100g is a minor misdemeanor, maximum fine $100--and no public record.. In quite a lot of states the same posession is a high level misdemeanor with jail time and obviously, a public record.
Does that mean that two people who've been cited for marijuana possession (same quantity), one in a state like Ohio with no public record, and another in a state with a public record will be treated very differently by companies because of their records? Absolutely. But that neither strikes me as fair or particularly logical--after all, the companies nor the security firms really ever sit down and realize that they are dependent on the state for the information--and that different laws in different states cause different information outcomes. They just use whatever information they have against the job candidate.
A cheap cable? Nope, just a $50 Geek Squad version. Off to Wal-mart for the $10 version
I'm convinced that 70% of Best Buy's profits are extended warranties, and the other 30% comes from perfectly normal cables sold for entirely unreasonable prices.
The only reason it's still crazy expensive is because the manufacturers want it to be.
I don't believe that to be the case. If some automaker figured that they could install it cheaply into vehicles they would do it because it's a damn nifty feature that would help sell cars. The car industry is too competitive at this point in time for them to be holding back features for one thing or another (particularly when it comes to luxury cars over $30k, where automakers struggle to define themselves out of the pack by putting in as many features as possible.)
I think you are severely underestimating the complexity of adaptive cruise control. That's driving up the cost. (The former article also implies that there are multiple companies making the product so it's not an issue of one company having a monopolozing patent on it.)
Adaptive cruise control is not exactly a safety feature (in my mind it's just short of it.) The automakers do not want it sold as a safety feature for fear of liability issues at this stage of the game. However, I think it's built to commercial aircraft levels of redundancy and sophistication anyway.
And frankly, I've been told it's a source of reliability issues, and trips to the dealer.
Studying CS to learn programming is like studying Economics when you want to go into business - economics and business are both about money, after all.
It's funny that you should say it that way, because you'd be surprised by the quantity of job openings whose requirements are a degree in Finance, Business or Economics.
So many in the business world, for good or bad, seem to think of them as functionally interchangeable.
This tech has been avilable since the 1980s, but we've yet to see it in consumer-grade vehicles. Why is that?
Adapative cruise-control is still crazy expensive (even on a $70k car it's a $2500 option.) Sure the tech might have been around since the 1980s but it's still wickedly complex and expensive.
Heads-up display never caught on...I suspect, again, because of cost, and maybe because it really never was all that good in car applications.
HUD is actually rare even in commercial airplanes. There are a variety of factors, but according to that thread, it has a $1mil pricetag per plane and airlines aren't very interested. However, HUD will probably become standard in commercial airplanes over the next 20 years.
To be fair, I think you'll see collision avoidance systems in cars before you see HUD. No matter how cool HUD is.
All kidding aside, Ohio was meant to play a bigger role in space than it has.
When the space program was initially conceived, the Cleveland NASA center was the obvious choice for being the technical operation headquarters.
However, dim-witted Ohio politicians (an unfortunately trend of the last 50 years) didn't know how important it was to make sure that Cleveland got the center (so they didn't bother to fight for it.)
Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson said that there would be no funding for the space program unless a major operation was set in Texas.
And that's why the line is "Houston, we have a problem" instead of "Cleveland, we have a problem."
Slashdot Mirror
IT CAN'T REMEMBER THAT YOU WANT TO STAY LOGGED IN! That checkbox on the login page, as far as I can tell, DOES. NOTHING.
It does do something...it remembers your username so everytime you go back to the site, the username is in the box. If you don't check the box, and your browswer doesn't offer a previously used username automatically, the box will be blank and you have to enter in your username everytime to log in.
The text next to the checkbox is "Remember me" and the behavior which is occurring is reasonably well described by that. Is it useful? Enough for me to keep the box checked I guess.
What you want is a checkbox that says "Keep me logged in." They don't offer that; I'm not sure why (I don't know why they automatically log you off after 24 hours either, but hell, my webmail provider logs me off automatically ever 3 hours which is indescribably frustrating.)
As for the iPhone device, the bleak reality is that it is slightly larger than a 5G iPod.
.6mm thicker. (I don't believe the extra width would translate into all that much of an issue. For comparison, RAZRs are 53-55mm wide.)
Perhaps, but perhaps you're overestimating the size of the 5G iPod.
5G iPod 30GB= 103.5mm x 52.42mm x 11mm
Proposed iPhone= 115mm x 61 x 11.6mm
In comparison:
Motorola SLVR= 114mm x 49mm x 11mm
I use a SLVR as my cell phone, and carry it in my front jeans pocket very comfortably, even in tight jeans. I think we can generally agree that the SLVR is one of the smaller phones (if not smallest bar phone available today) and the iPhone as proposed is just 1 mm longer, 12 mm wider, and
You can fly without ID.
Gilmore wasn't arguing that. What he was arguing was whether the more intensive search burdened his right to travel anonymously? Does it? Well in order to figure that out, you have to balance that right to travel with whatever the government's objectives/goals were in requiring id-less passengers to undergo the more intensive security checks. In fact, the burden of going through the more intensive screening may be quite minor, so all the government has to do is show that the objectives/goals/purpose for creating that burden "weigh" more than the burden itself.
The government said "we can't tell you why we do it, cuz it's secret." The courts decided to defer to the government and not bother weighing the burden, trusting that the government weighs the burden fairly all by itself and, by extension, they retain some right to do so in some circumstances.
It's not the fact that this sorta thing hasn't happened before--it has. But typically those cases only affected a small group of people or just one person. This regulation affects a national system that carriers 100 million people yearly, so even if the burden of going through the intensive check is minor on the micro level, it builds up quickly on the macro level. It strikes me that the court did have some obligation to examine it in that context, but declined to do so.
In order to make this argument, you have to define what exactly is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." In legal dictionaries, they are considered synonymous, and "X is a privilege, whereas Y is a right" is not considered a legal concept. (I asked the head legal counsel for the Maryland MVA what does "driving is a privilege" mean (it's on the first page of the Maryland Driver's Handbook. He replied that the term is "meaningless." Indeed, in my research when Ohio passed its first law requiring a driver's license, Ohio statutes were full of language referring to "driving rights." Like "driving rights shall be given only to individuals of 14 and above..." This language has disappeared with time. Undoubtedly, driving is truly a right. Everyone has the right to a driver's license, and the state cannot deny that right except for well founded reasons which do not overly burden it.
;-) trounces the airline carriers right to fly whomever, because that right is severely diminished by the laws controlling their operating environment.)
In reality, it would be best to say that courts and legislatures look at everything as a right, all of which can be regulated in some way. The burden of the regulation is taken into account and balanced against the negative effects of preventing someone from having that right. Rights are highly contextually dependent--for instance, freedom of speech is one of the least infringed rights on the micro (individual) level, but is several times more heavily regulated at the macro level (cigarette companies can't advertise, campaign finance laws, etc.)
So in evaluating the statement...The aircraft is private property run by a private company, and as such can refuse business to any individual they wish for any reason they wish several things pop up. First, there is clearly a right to fly (operate) an airplane. Over time, this has become an enormously regulated right, particularly for airline carriers. Can an airline refuse to do business with a particular race or gender of people? Well, in the 1960's United had male only flights between Chicago and LA. In today's legal world, I suspect that even the small burden of requiring women to take a later flight would be considered infringing on their rights, and I don't think that this would be acceptable to modern courts with the legal frameworks we have. The micro level right to fly and be dealt with a business equally as all other clients (a right established by the government, who has..uhh...the right to do that sorta thing
Why would anyone have wanted to create such a device?
This is the first time I've heard of the idea, but if you could have purchased a combo Beta/VHS vcr (for a few hundred more, and cheaper than buying both separately) many probably would have. Since video renting was huge at that time, but the stock that we get used to at blockbuster wasn't in place yet, the ability to play Beta or VHS would have been pretty convenient.
It was not uncommon for people to have had both.
And when they broke, you took them to a VCR/TV repair guy, who would charge you $100 to fix it, and you felt good about that, because a new one was still $400.
It'll be fine as long as Wal-Mart tells us where we can dispose of the bulbs. I changed the Xenon bulb in my car and I struggled for weeks to find a local place that could take the bulb.
The dealer changed the other one a few months back when the car was under warranty. I suspect they just threw it away.
Is it so hard to take the cue from the rest of the world, where such nonsense is not even considered (with no apparent ill effects)?
In addition to the stuff mentioned in previous posts, the industry is a Leviathan. Each drug test is enormously profitable and they continue being performed under intense lobbying by the companies that do it. Poor HR people don't stand a chance.
I have often heard that drug testing lowers insurance rates (such as worker's comp.) However, I find this is only the case when a legislature passed a law allowing for that by statute. Apparently drug testing is underwriting neutral otherwise.
i speculate that thousands years ago, prior to articfial, imaginary, political boundaries
The passport, as we know and use it, is a creation of World War I and, was, *rolls eyes* an attempt to prevent espionage. Attempts to eliminate it post World War I failed.
I think the mistake is to assume that it is genuinely useful in mitigating the issues you mentioned. I suspect that yes, you could justify the passport on marginal and anecdotal issues/evidence, but I suspect that the document is significantly more useless than we give it credit.
It's ability to protect the populace from those who want to kill us is likely as marginal as it's ability to protect us from World War I spies.
dont you need, like, a passport or something to fly into and out of the u.s.? doesnt that sorta ruin your privacy?
Considering the fact that, for thousands of years of human history, people did not require permission or documentation to cross land or sea, the passport is, at the very least, a major encumbrance on (what I consider) the human right to travel without impediment.
As for a privacy claim, if you take the point of view that privacy is the ability to restrain people from having only as much information as is needed for a particular task, then the passport is often over-designed: for a visitor to the US, it arguably only requires a photograph and an indication of citizenship (to prove citizenship but not so much information that it can "prove" identity.)
The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC
On this note, one of the more fascinating rumors that I remember hearing (a lot actually) during the late 1990s when Apple didn't have an oar to paddle with--was that Apple would build the next Mac OS around the NT kernal.
In retrospect, I find it more plausible today that they would have/could have done that than I did then.
How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?
The next time Forbes.com prints an article that is really compelling and yet is horribly handicapped by forcing the user to learn information by a slideshow interface that just plain sucks.
Even when you can operate the slideshow at your own speed, the slideshow completely refreshes the window you're looking at (I presume it's so that an article with a list can show off much more advertising than if the list were presented normally.) It's irritating on good days, painful on bad when the connection on my end or their end is slow.
Why even bother with the chip? Why even bother with the information?
I believe that RFID chip manufacturers convinced the US (specifically Department of Homeland Security) that RFID chips were the best way to prevent passport fraud/theft and ensure proper identity, so the US forced that idea on top of the rest of the world by saying that only countries issuing RFID enabled passports would be visa waiver eligible.
I guess that's what they call a failure of imagination.
It's a common failure that occurs in these scenarios.
As part of my research on driver's licensing issues, when states added photos to driver's licenses (starting in the late 60's) the word "fraud" never entered the picture. Driver's licenses were essentially fraud free documents before the photographs were added--so it really never entered anyone's mind that things would change once the document became more powerful/useful/trusted.
When the SSN card was first introduced, it was derided as a national ID card, but the proponents promised it wasn't.
On this note, one thing that just continues to amaze me is that the Social Security Administration hasn't had its ass handed to it because of major lawsuit regarding identity fraud.
The Social Security Administration is responsible for issuance of the SSN. They should know and be fully responsible for the results of that issuance and the way it is used. (Think of this in terms of a product liability lawsuit.) If the SSA wanted to prevent liability issues, they should have either worked to prevent non-SSA uses for the SSN or not issued an SSN at all.
They told me to sit about 12 minutes and my ID would be ready.
I consider 12 minutes unacceptably long. Here in Ohio, the time after the picture is taken to when the license is printed is less than 45 seconds. (The printer has a 4 color ribbon--so it passes over the license 4 times and then attaches the hologram overlay.)
Ohio and Oregon do over the counter issuance, whereas California (and a few other states) do centralized issuance. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.
Over the counter allows for immediate issuance. Centralized allows for easier upgrades to the card (all you have to do is change the machines at one location.)
Small time fraud is just as easy in an over the counter or a centralized state. However, centralized issuance makes big time fraud easier. From my calculations, California issues 25,000 to 30,000 cards per day. If you have someone who hacks the system well enough, the California DMV would never know an extra 1000 bad cards were added to the daily batch. An extra 1000 cards in an over the counter state would be very complex.
For what it's worth, compliance with the REAL ID act would basically require all states to switch to centralized issuance.
If there's a single, universal ID then the forgeries need to be much better....This raises the bar a ton as now you have to produce essentially perfect forgeries and there aren't a lot of forgers that can do that.
But the problem ends up coming around full circle. Instead of forgers in all the different states concentrating on just figuring out their own state's designs--then all the forgers nationally will be working simultaneously on the national ID card. It's not like they work alone--there is a certain amount of information sharing and synergizing going on (in fact, this happens already. While there might be 50 different state driver's licenses, there's only about 3-4 card manufacturers. If you can figure out how to do a good job on a New York Driver's license, you're 80% there for a California license.)
California has probably the most complex card to forge, and yet, it's suprisingly easy to find forged well. It's a simple problem of the fact that there is more forging effort thrown at the California card than any other state card. The more brains working on the problem, the more solutions will be found.
Then, I turned on the Blackberry and actually tried to use it for a phone call. What was I thinking??? It sounds like cr*p
I was always disappointed by voice quality issues on GSM--particularly when I'm outside and it's windy.
It's my understanding that CDMA has algorithims built into the protocol for squelching certain types of background noises like wind.
You can quintuple quote "Cleanly"
I couldn't agree more actually--but hypothetically, it's built to be a bit more fair in terms of reporting than the criminal justice system. That was my only point.
My big beef with the system is that the credit scoring system is so mysterious. Huge decisions are made based on your credit score, but we the citizens have only a cursory understanding of how it works.
What I want is this--full disclosure of the algorithim as well as full disclosure of what certain actions will do to the score. For instance, if I apply and receive a new credit card...when I get the card in the mail, there should be a very clear notice on the insert "Your credit score is 650. When you activate this card, with a $5k credit line, your score will become 620 because of X, Y and Z. If you use it this way and charge Q on the card, your score will become 600. If you use it this way, and do this for a period of a year, all things held the same, your score will become 660."
The current system is horrible.
The relevant code section is below. Minor misdemeanor possession of marijuana is the only minor misdemeanor offense that I am aware of that is a non-public record.
ORC 2925.11
(3) If the drug involved in the violation is marihuana or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing marihuana other than hashish, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of possession of marihuana. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section, possession of marihuana is a minor misdemeanor.
(D) Arrest or conviction for a minor misdemeanor violation of this section does not constitute a criminal record and need not be reported by the person so arrested or convicted in response to any inquiries about the person's criminal record, including any inquiries contained in any application for employment, license, or other right or privilege, or made in connection with the person's appearance as a witness.
Is there any evidence that there is a correlation between that and long-past criminal convictions that aren't closely related to the kind of damage they later do?
I do background checks for a living.
I wouldn't go as far to say that it's snake oil, but I definitely think it's oversold by so-called security types.
I think they are most useful in predicting some types of violent behavior. In my experience, an individual who gets charged and convicted with domestic violence in their 50s almost always has a dozen speeding tickets, a criminal trespass conviction and maybe a disorderly conduct charge for good measure. Background checks might be useful to predict this type of potential behavior.
On the other hand, people who commit murder or sexual offenses (whether it's in their 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s) won't even have a parking ticket in their name. I feel like they just snap one day. So in this regard, background checks are worthless.
Theft and burglury and related charges are 95% of the time committed by those under 25. It just doesn't come up later in life. Background checks can be misleading in this regard.
Background checks that go back 30 or 40 years are pretty expensive (as noted in the article) and unusual. If you did your crime in the 70s I'm guaranteed not to find it.
My biggest issue is that background checks are hugely dependent on our judicial system, which doesn't operate as "cleanly" as the credit rating system, but for some reason, is treated as if it did.
Money used in defense plays a huge role in things. An extra grand or two on a lawyer might very well be the difference between being offered a plea bargain to misdemeanor 1 Theft, and being offered a plea bargain to misdemeanor 4 unauthorized use of property with the prosecutor agreeing to expunge the case in a year. (Whereas the credit rating system keeps all the records out there, what keeps criminal records around in the judicial system might have very little to do with the crime perpetrated.
How the state legislature enacted laws plays a huge role, though one the security companies like to dismiss. For instance, my state of Ohio has probably the nation's most liberal marijuana possession laws--anything under 100g is a minor misdemeanor, maximum fine $100--and no public record.. In quite a lot of states the same posession is a high level misdemeanor with jail time and obviously, a public record.
Does that mean that two people who've been cited for marijuana possession (same quantity), one in a state like Ohio with no public record, and another in a state with a public record will be treated very differently by companies because of their records? Absolutely. But that neither strikes me as fair or particularly logical--after all, the companies nor the security firms really ever sit down and realize that they are dependent on the state for the information--and that different laws in different states cause different information outcomes. They just use whatever information they have against the job candidate.
A cheap cable? Nope, just a $50 Geek Squad version. Off to Wal-mart for the $10 version
I'm convinced that 70% of Best Buy's profits are extended warranties, and the other 30% comes from perfectly normal cables sold for entirely unreasonable prices.
The only reason it's still crazy expensive is because the manufacturers want it to be.
I don't believe that to be the case. If some automaker figured that they could install it cheaply into vehicles they would do it because it's a damn nifty feature that would help sell cars. The car industry is too competitive at this point in time for them to be holding back features for one thing or another (particularly when it comes to luxury cars over $30k, where automakers struggle to define themselves out of the pack by putting in as many features as possible.)
I think you are severely underestimating the complexity of adaptive cruise control. That's driving up the cost. (The former article also implies that there are multiple companies making the product so it's not an issue of one company having a monopolozing patent on it.)
Adaptive cruise control is not exactly a safety feature (in my mind it's just short of it.) The automakers do not want it sold as a safety feature for fear of liability issues at this stage of the game. However, I think it's built to commercial aircraft levels of redundancy and sophistication anyway.
And frankly, I've been told it's a source of reliability issues, and trips to the dealer.
Studying CS to learn programming is like studying Economics when you want to go into business - economics and business are both about money, after all.
It's funny that you should say it that way, because you'd be surprised by the quantity of job openings whose requirements are a degree in Finance, Business or Economics.
So many in the business world, for good or bad, seem to think of them as functionally interchangeable.
This tech has been avilable since the 1980s, but we've yet to see it in consumer-grade vehicles. Why is that?
Adapative cruise-control is still crazy expensive (even on a $70k car it's a $2500 option.) Sure the tech might have been around since the 1980s but it's still wickedly complex and expensive.
Heads-up display never caught on...I suspect, again, because of cost, and maybe because it really never was all that good in car applications.
HUD is actually rare even in commercial airplanes. There are a variety of factors, but according to that thread, it has a $1mil pricetag per plane and airlines aren't very interested. However, HUD will probably become standard in commercial airplanes over the next 20 years.
To be fair, I think you'll see collision avoidance systems in cars before you see HUD. No matter how cool HUD is.
As an Ohioan, let me relay this narrative to you
All kidding aside, Ohio was meant to play a bigger role in space than it has.
When the space program was initially conceived, the Cleveland NASA center was the obvious choice for being the technical operation headquarters.
However, dim-witted Ohio politicians (an unfortunately trend of the last 50 years) didn't know how important it was to make sure that Cleveland got the center (so they didn't bother to fight for it.)
Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson said that there would be no funding for the space program unless a major operation was set in Texas.
And that's why the line is "Houston, we have a problem" instead of "Cleveland, we have a problem."