why on earth is Nuclear Power plants on that list?
Conversation I had a REAL ID symposium:
speaker: "the REAL ID act allows states to keep religious objector non-photo ID cards, but obviously those cards would not be REAL ID act approved"
some idiot: "oh, but think of the inconvenience those people will go through, like the Amish"
me: "definitely. the Amish love touring nuclear powerplants"
I laugh whenever I hear the list of places for REAL ID. The list is often repeated by DHS people and I think it makes them look stupid. It arguably makes other people look stupid when they don't bother to ask..."wait, nuclear power plants, who the hell goes to nuclear power plants?"
They keep on citing the security needs of nuclear power plants as a reason to take on the REAL ID and I have never known anyone who has toured a nuclear power plant.
I had that problem when I first had Sprint. I was told not to disconnect voice mail by hanging up the phone, but using the # to disconnect the call. That seemed to have taken care of the problem, though, on the other hand, I could have been imagining things.
Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that.
I disagree. A recent article in The Economist discussed the up-tick in shareholder activism. Shareholder activism comes in many shapes and forms, such as shareholders demanding that Yahoo not do business with China or Home Depot executives getting grilled about their pay in the face of declining revenues.
The up-tick is expected to continue. Few Americans have traditional pensions so more and more retirement money is going into defined contribution funds, which means that you and I own more and more of these large companies. This will prove to be an exciting time period...where shareholders become aggressive with managers. It's democracy in action really.
So yes, corporations have billions of dollars, and a lot of that money is ours through our share ownership.
(The article is "Hail Shareholder" from the Mar 31, 2007 issue of The Economist.)
Ooops. I forgot that you were also talking about the long term costs as well. From the same article.
"Set against this economic gain is a fiscal cost, as immigration's opponents are quick to point out. Illegal migrants, with their low skills and large families, are likely to consume more in government services, such as education and health care, than they pay in taxes. The exact fiscal impact is controversial. The federal government is probably a net winner, whereas states, which pay a bigger share of schooling and emergency health care, lose out. Today's taxpayers may suffer--they must pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants. But tomorrow's may gain--these first-generation Americans will likely earn far more than their parents, adding to the pot of taxes in the future."
Sure, it will cost a few billion up front, but the long-term savings would be enormous
The Economist had an article on this very topic, and I'm afraid that your assessment is wrong.
" In the short term the fiscal burden imposed by illegal immigrants may outweigh the economic gains they bring. In other words, the average native-born American has a higher pre-tax income thanks to the country's "broken" border, but his post-tax income may be slightly lower. All told, Mr Hanson thinks that illegal immigration might cost native-born residents some 0.07% of GDP.
But that net cost, if it exists at all, is clearly less than the price of keeping illegal workers out. Since 2001 Congress has more than doubled the amount of money spent on securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws. Mr Bush's 2008 budget proposes spending $13 billion, or 0.1% of GDP. The senators' plans would be even more expensive. A needlessly cumbersome guest-worker plan and a costly war on gatecrashers are bad ideas--even if you don't give a fig for the welfare of would-be migrants." (Guests v gatecrashers: May 31st 2007, The uncomfortable economics of immigration reform, The Economist)
I found it useful in several places. Recently my father forwarded me an email from his boss (IT email/blackberry support) saying they were taking a wait-and-see approach on the iPhone, and refusing support for the moment. The reasons for doing so were basically a copy and paste of Gartner's assessment--including the fact that there was no Notes/Exchange support.
I'm not in IT (anymore) so I didn't know that Notes/Exchange support IMAP and POP, so the claim of no Notes/Exchange support is a bit of a red herring. At the very least, Gartner should be embarrassed for being professionals in the field and forgetting about that.
the shady past of AT&T is nothing but a weak smear campaign dragging up every tiny thing from the past
See, I didn't get that. I don't feel the article said it was a weak smear campaign--I felt the article gave the shady past of AT&T its due. For me, the most salient point was the fact that Gizmodo didn't hold other companies to the fire like they have AT&T. If that's true, I think they have a point to a point--AT&T's dealings are so much more shadier than other companies.
Seriously, if this thing doesn't have the latest security protection against theft and misuse, it's a waste of money.
Well then it sounds like the first service charge a new iPhone owner should entertain is the Wireless Phone Insurance, for $4.99 a month. (I know I would get it.)
I wonder if ATT may rise the price of the insurance cost, noting that the iPhone is significantly more expensive than other lost phones.
What is the real "legal" definition of what a lobbyist is supposed to do?
A professional who informs democratically elected representatives about issues.
While these professionals have to be paid somehow, and the root of their pay makes them beholden to some interest or another, what a legislator needs to do and understand is simply too complex without receiving counsel and guidance otherwise.
I live in Columbus near the Ohio statehouse and since I have a lot of knowledge about identity theft, privacy and driver's license security issues, I often show up at the statehouse and give testimony on a bill. I'm essentially a college student with a job with no set hours, so it's not hard for me to do. I can meet up with a legislator or make a committee meeting (which are always held during the day) with no trouble. People who might have the knowledge or expertise but have regular jobs will find that difficult.
But what I do I do for free, because I want to see Ohio have better laws on things that I feel passionate about or interest me. I can only devote so much time to it.
The other day, I testified on an identity theft bill. I was talking about a major problem with some state websites and I wanted to show the committee what the problem is--so I asked if there were a projector available to hook my laptop to.
The assistant to the chair of the committee said he's never asked for a projector before--and he's done the job for 3 years now.
That scared me. It doesn't take much computer knowledge to put together a powerpoint presentation, and we all know (stereotype alert) that low-tech types like powerpoint. It implied to me that the people who would often speak in front of this committee didn't have a very good knowledge of computing.
I did get my projector, and made my presentation (which included talk about "brute force" techniques.) The next week, a state senator's office called--the senator read my written testimony and asked during that committee hearing what was the difference between brute forcing a password and phishing. No one was there who could answer the question.
It's clear to me that Ohio needs to have a professional lobbyist walking around the statehouse who knows computer security issues and who could spend his time getting legislators up to speed. While lobbyists are often political mercenaries, they do fulfill a certain role that no one else can.
Just go get a money order from the post office or even a convenience store.
Better yet, just go ahead and give the money to a friend who does have a checking account, and have them write the check for you.
I spent about 6 months of my life without a bank account (it's a long story, but not necessarily an unusual one.) It really wasn't that bad. I could endorse checks over to a friend who cashed them for me through their own bank account. I took my paychecks and endorsed them directly to my landlord, who would give me cash back if I overpaid.
Obviously there was a certain amount of inconvenience, and I was spreading that inconvenience around onto my friends who had to go to the bank occasionally.
On the other hand, if you are dealing only with cash, you spend your money very differently. There was an article recently about how spending cash activates pain receptors in the brain, but using credit cards does not (and I suspect the same for debit cards as well.) When I didn't have bank accounts, I was much more careful with the money I spent. To this day, if I find myself spending too much, I flip back to cash for a bit and force myself that way to budget.
The slashdot community is full of people who have always had money in their lives, in some way, so many of the responses here are incredulous at the idea of someone who could live without bank accounts and credit. It's done all the time. It really isn't that big a deal.
Interestingly, no one so far has questioned the 400% statistic. I'll go along with the idea that cell phone use is associated with a higher rate of accidents, but 400% is pretty high.
Bars tend to have books with pictures of all the state licenses and details on how to detect fakes. So that's at least one place the security details are used other than by law enforcement.
Those books do not have the hidden security features explained. Hypothetically, only the state is supposed to know about the hidden security features.
I know that I'm not willing to go to the USA as long as I'm treated as a criminal and I'm not alone with that sentiment.
And as an American, I ask that you encourage as many people to do the same. I would not travel to any country that photographed and fingerprinted me as a condition of entry, and I would not expect anyone else to do the same. My fear is that if Homeland Security doesn't feel the pain of their decisions now, who knows what other things they'll come up with.
And of course, also mysteriously, the American Center for Voting Rights, the organization which was the primary force for the ID to vote laws, has disappeared.
Make picture IDs free for everyone, not cost $50 or whatever they cost these days and not make people wait more than 10 minutes in line, and I might agree with you.
You have to go farther than that. One of the reasons the Georgia ID to vote law was overturned by the courts is that, while the ID itself was free, the birth certificate needed to get it wasn't. Furthermore, while ID cards are typically issued quickly, birth certificates are not. Some states take months to issue replacement birth certificates unless you pay for expedited processing. Courts are ok with a certain amount of hassle in order to register to vote and vote, but they didn't like the combination of these issues.
The document security culture really seems to like hidden security features, but I'm not sure if they are all that useful. In fact, they are often included on driver's licenses by clueless DMVs who are up-sold by ID making companies. (Only law enforcement would know of the hidden features but law enforcement has access to the computer database to see if the document is real or not anyway.)
In recent times, I've been thinking of the hidden security features as a litmus test. If the manufacturer sees counterfeiters doing a good job counterfeiting difficult to make security features that no one notices, then it's time to step up their game.
And since it's vaguely on-topic, one of the large lobbying groups most sensitive to detecting incrementalism is the gun lobby. It's not because they have, in the aggregate, some irrational need for a semi-automatic/automatic weapon. What they see is a constitutional clause that seem to guarantee arms ownership without limitation and without any footnote, and people clamoring to regulate things in spite of that. So in the gun lobby's mind, the only way to prevent incrementalism is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Without this in mind, many people will see the gun lobby as being absurd in their positions.
While I agree with you in principle, the unfortunate reality is that the federal government will probably wind up blackmailing non-compliant states into submission.
That might occur, but this is actually a touch harder. As I've understood things, there still needs to be some relationship between the blackmailing and the item for which the government is doing it. The 55mph speed limit was a requirement on government highways that the federal government pays for. The raised drinking age was to prevent drunk driving on the federal government's highways.
They would have a devil of a time tying the Real ID act to highway funding. I suspect if they could have, they would have already.
I know you meant this as a joke, but this is not an insignificant thing. The population of the country hasn't even doubled since 1978 and yet the quantity of people flying went up ten-fold. Air fares have barely budged.
Airlines have also begun to learn how to operate on margins, which is great when everything works well, but bad when it doesn't (see JetBlue earlier this year.) Airlines will send out a fully loaded transcontinental flight with 200 passengers which will be profitable by only $200. Often profit/loss per (domestic) passenger falls into a +/- $1.50 range. It's extraordinary how close they shave this sheep.
Some of us find our personal code of ethics important to follow whether someone is watching or not.
If you have a "personal code of ethics" then there is a person watching, and that person is yourself. You are making moral calculations based on a particular framework. Regardless of the actual positive or negative outcome of decisions that come from that framework, simply keeping to it is a reward to yourself (of some type.)
The article mentioned people (end of first page) who are truly making decisions without anyone watching. They might actually make good moral decisions that have a positive overall effect, and may even use sophisticated reasoning to get to those decisions. However, only for them is no one truly "watching" because they don't factor their own psychological reward for a moral decision.
Since there is a reward, a personal code of ethics is, alas, inherently selfish (though the outcomes may not be.)
and the public will not vocally insist on reliable vehicles.
Had to stop you there. I disagree completely with this, particularly in the United States. There is a well known trend that automakers have been dealing with regarding increasing reliability expectations and consumers. This trend goes through the roof with Generation Y types--who are nearly impossible expectations regarding quality and reliability. If it's not perfect the first time, they aren't satisfied--and they are much more expensive to keep happy because they won't hesitate to take the car to the dealer for warranty work on something small.
Slashdot Mirror
why on earth is Nuclear Power plants on that list?
Conversation I had a REAL ID symposium:
speaker: "the REAL ID act allows states to keep religious objector non-photo ID cards, but obviously those cards would not be REAL ID act approved"
some idiot: "oh, but think of the inconvenience those people will go through, like the Amish"
me: "definitely. the Amish love touring nuclear powerplants"
I laugh whenever I hear the list of places for REAL ID. The list is often repeated by DHS people and I think it makes them look stupid. It arguably makes other people look stupid when they don't bother to ask..."wait, nuclear power plants, who the hell goes to nuclear power plants?"
They keep on citing the security needs of nuclear power plants as a reason to take on the REAL ID and I have never known anyone who has toured a nuclear power plant.
Most incoming calls sent direct to voice mail?
I had that problem when I first had Sprint. I was told not to disconnect voice mail by hanging up the phone, but using the # to disconnect the call. That seemed to have taken care of the problem, though, on the other hand, I could have been imagining things.
Where I work, the register clerks are taught to check the name and signature against the driver's license name, signature, and picture.
Is that happening in the US? Visa/MC merchant agreements forbid the checking of driver's licenses if the card is signed, in the US at least.
I'm sorry, that was the May 31, 2007 issue of the Economist.
Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that.
I disagree. A recent article in The Economist discussed the up-tick in shareholder activism. Shareholder activism comes in many shapes and forms, such as shareholders demanding that Yahoo not do business with China or Home Depot executives getting grilled about their pay in the face of declining revenues.
The up-tick is expected to continue. Few Americans have traditional pensions so more and more retirement money is going into defined contribution funds, which means that you and I own more and more of these large companies. This will prove to be an exciting time period...where shareholders become aggressive with managers. It's democracy in action really.
So yes, corporations have billions of dollars, and a lot of that money is ours through our share ownership.
(The article is "Hail Shareholder" from the Mar 31, 2007 issue of The Economist.)
Surprisingly, I can't find a YouTube video.
I believe this is what you're looking for
Ooops. I forgot that you were also talking about the long term costs as well. From the same article.
"Set against this economic gain is a fiscal cost, as immigration's opponents are quick to point out. Illegal migrants, with their low skills and large families, are likely to consume more in government services, such as education and health care, than they pay in taxes. The exact fiscal impact is controversial. The federal government is probably a net winner, whereas states, which pay a bigger share of schooling and emergency health care, lose out. Today's taxpayers may suffer--they must pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants. But tomorrow's may gain--these first-generation Americans will likely earn far more than their parents, adding to the pot of taxes in the future."
Sure, it will cost a few billion up front, but the long-term savings would be enormous
The Economist had an article on this very topic, and I'm afraid that your assessment is wrong.
" In the short term the fiscal burden imposed by illegal immigrants may outweigh the economic gains they bring. In other words, the average native-born American has a higher pre-tax income thanks to the country's "broken" border, but his post-tax income may be slightly lower. All told, Mr Hanson thinks that illegal immigration might cost native-born residents some 0.07% of GDP.
But that net cost, if it exists at all, is clearly less than the price of keeping illegal workers out. Since 2001 Congress has more than doubled the amount of money spent on securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws. Mr Bush's 2008 budget proposes spending $13 billion, or 0.1% of GDP. The senators' plans would be even more expensive. A needlessly cumbersome guest-worker plan and a costly war on gatecrashers are bad ideas--even if you don't give a fig for the welfare of would-be migrants." (Guests v gatecrashers: May 31st 2007, The uncomfortable economics of immigration reform, The Economist)
but this article doesn't add anything
I found it useful in several places. Recently my father forwarded me an email from his boss (IT email/blackberry support) saying they were taking a wait-and-see approach on the iPhone, and refusing support for the moment. The reasons for doing so were basically a copy and paste of Gartner's assessment--including the fact that there was no Notes/Exchange support.
I'm not in IT (anymore) so I didn't know that Notes/Exchange support IMAP and POP, so the claim of no Notes/Exchange support is a bit of a red herring. At the very least, Gartner should be embarrassed for being professionals in the field and forgetting about that.
the shady past of AT&T is nothing but a weak smear campaign dragging up every tiny thing from the past
See, I didn't get that. I don't feel the article said it was a weak smear campaign--I felt the article gave the shady past of AT&T its due. For me, the most salient point was the fact that Gizmodo didn't hold other companies to the fire like they have AT&T. If that's true, I think they have a point to a point--AT&T's dealings are so much more shadier than other companies.
Seriously, if this thing doesn't have the latest security protection against theft and misuse, it's a waste of money.
Well then it sounds like the first service charge a new iPhone owner should entertain is the Wireless Phone Insurance, for $4.99 a month. (I know I would get it.)
I wonder if ATT may rise the price of the insurance cost, noting that the iPhone is significantly more expensive than other lost phones.
What is the real "legal" definition of what a lobbyist is supposed to do?
A professional who informs democratically elected representatives about issues.
While these professionals have to be paid somehow, and the root of their pay makes them beholden to some interest or another, what a legislator needs to do and understand is simply too complex without receiving counsel and guidance otherwise.
I live in Columbus near the Ohio statehouse and since I have a lot of knowledge about identity theft, privacy and driver's license security issues, I often show up at the statehouse and give testimony on a bill. I'm essentially a college student with a job with no set hours, so it's not hard for me to do. I can meet up with a legislator or make a committee meeting (which are always held during the day) with no trouble. People who might have the knowledge or expertise but have regular jobs will find that difficult.
But what I do I do for free, because I want to see Ohio have better laws on things that I feel passionate about or interest me. I can only devote so much time to it.
The other day, I testified on an identity theft bill. I was talking about a major problem with some state websites and I wanted to show the committee what the problem is--so I asked if there were a projector available to hook my laptop to.
The assistant to the chair of the committee said he's never asked for a projector before--and he's done the job for 3 years now.
That scared me. It doesn't take much computer knowledge to put together a powerpoint presentation, and we all know (stereotype alert) that low-tech types like powerpoint. It implied to me that the people who would often speak in front of this committee didn't have a very good knowledge of computing.
I did get my projector, and made my presentation (which included talk about "brute force" techniques.) The next week, a state senator's office called--the senator read my written testimony and asked during that committee hearing what was the difference between brute forcing a password and phishing. No one was there who could answer the question.
It's clear to me that Ohio needs to have a professional lobbyist walking around the statehouse who knows computer security issues and who could spend his time getting legislators up to speed. While lobbyists are often political mercenaries, they do fulfill a certain role that no one else can.
Just go get a money order from the post office or even a convenience store.
Better yet, just go ahead and give the money to a friend who does have a checking account, and have them write the check for you.
I spent about 6 months of my life without a bank account (it's a long story, but not necessarily an unusual one.) It really wasn't that bad. I could endorse checks over to a friend who cashed them for me through their own bank account. I took my paychecks and endorsed them directly to my landlord, who would give me cash back if I overpaid.
Obviously there was a certain amount of inconvenience, and I was spreading that inconvenience around onto my friends who had to go to the bank occasionally.
On the other hand, if you are dealing only with cash, you spend your money very differently. There was an article recently about how spending cash activates pain receptors in the brain, but using credit cards does not (and I suspect the same for debit cards as well.) When I didn't have bank accounts, I was much more careful with the money I spent. To this day, if I find myself spending too much, I flip back to cash for a bit and force myself that way to budget.
The slashdot community is full of people who have always had money in their lives, in some way, so many of the responses here are incredulous at the idea of someone who could live without bank accounts and credit. It's done all the time. It really isn't that big a deal.
I'd swear that he's been reading Toffler
:-)
haha...that would explain the random scatterbrainedness of the company as well.
I incidentally liked Revolutionary Wealth...but it sure touched a cornucopia of issues.
I Call Shenanigans on this!
Interestingly, no one so far has questioned the 400% statistic. I'll go along with the idea that cell phone use is associated with a higher rate of accidents, but 400% is pretty high.
Bars tend to have books with pictures of all the state licenses and details on how to detect fakes. So that's at least one place the security details are used other than by law enforcement.
Those books do not have the hidden security features explained. Hypothetically, only the state is supposed to know about the hidden security features.
I know that I'm not willing to go to the USA as long as I'm treated as a criminal and I'm not alone with that sentiment.
And as an American, I ask that you encourage as many people to do the same. I would not travel to any country that photographed and fingerprinted me as a condition of entry, and I would not expect anyone else to do the same. My fear is that if Homeland Security doesn't feel the pain of their decisions now, who knows what other things they'll come up with.
Now if we could just get mandatory picture IDs for voting, we'd eliminate nearly all of the election rigging.
One of the most interesting things occurring now is that some of the biggest proponents of the ID to vote laws are now desperately quickly backing away from their involvement/positions.
And of course, also mysteriously, the American Center for Voting Rights, the organization which was the primary force for the ID to vote laws, has disappeared.
India uses paper ballots
Actually, India uses machines and has for several years now.
Make picture IDs free for everyone, not cost $50 or whatever they cost these days and not make people wait more than 10 minutes in line, and I might agree with you.
You have to go farther than that. One of the reasons the Georgia ID to vote law was overturned by the courts is that, while the ID itself was free, the birth certificate needed to get it wasn't. Furthermore, while ID cards are typically issued quickly, birth certificates are not. Some states take months to issue replacement birth certificates unless you pay for expedited processing. Courts are ok with a certain amount of hassle in order to register to vote and vote, but they didn't like the combination of these issues.
The document security culture really seems to like hidden security features, but I'm not sure if they are all that useful. In fact, they are often included on driver's licenses by clueless DMVs who are up-sold by ID making companies. (Only law enforcement would know of the hidden features but law enforcement has access to the computer database to see if the document is real or not anyway.)
In recent times, I've been thinking of the hidden security features as a litmus test. If the manufacturer sees counterfeiters doing a good job counterfeiting difficult to make security features that no one notices, then it's time to step up their game.
It's called "incrementalism".
And since it's vaguely on-topic, one of the large lobbying groups most sensitive to detecting incrementalism is the gun lobby. It's not because they have, in the aggregate, some irrational need for a semi-automatic/automatic weapon. What they see is a constitutional clause that seem to guarantee arms ownership without limitation and without any footnote, and people clamoring to regulate things in spite of that. So in the gun lobby's mind, the only way to prevent incrementalism is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Without this in mind, many people will see the gun lobby as being absurd in their positions.
While I agree with you in principle, the unfortunate reality is that the federal government will probably wind up blackmailing non-compliant states into submission.
That might occur, but this is actually a touch harder. As I've understood things, there still needs to be some relationship between the blackmailing and the item for which the government is doing it. The 55mph speed limit was a requirement on government highways that the federal government pays for. The raised drinking age was to prevent drunk driving on the federal government's highways.
They would have a devil of a time tying the Real ID act to highway funding. I suspect if they could have, they would have already.
More people can fly, flights are cheaper
I know you meant this as a joke, but this is not an insignificant thing. The population of the country hasn't even doubled since 1978 and yet the quantity of people flying went up ten-fold. Air fares have barely budged.
Airlines have also begun to learn how to operate on margins, which is great when everything works well, but bad when it doesn't (see JetBlue earlier this year.) Airlines will send out a fully loaded transcontinental flight with 200 passengers which will be profitable by only $200. Often profit/loss per (domestic) passenger falls into a +/- $1.50 range. It's extraordinary how close they shave this sheep.
Some of us find our personal code of ethics important to follow whether someone is watching or not.
If you have a "personal code of ethics" then there is a person watching, and that person is yourself. You are making moral calculations based on a particular framework. Regardless of the actual positive or negative outcome of decisions that come from that framework, simply keeping to it is a reward to yourself (of some type.)
The article mentioned people (end of first page) who are truly making decisions without anyone watching. They might actually make good moral decisions that have a positive overall effect, and may even use sophisticated reasoning to get to those decisions. However, only for them is no one truly "watching" because they don't factor their own psychological reward for a moral decision.
Since there is a reward, a personal code of ethics is, alas, inherently selfish (though the outcomes may not be.)
and the public will not vocally insist on reliable vehicles.
Had to stop you there. I disagree completely with this, particularly in the United States. There is a well known trend that automakers have been dealing with regarding increasing reliability expectations and consumers. This trend goes through the roof with Generation Y types--who are nearly impossible expectations regarding quality and reliability. If it's not perfect the first time, they aren't satisfied--and they are much more expensive to keep happy because they won't hesitate to take the car to the dealer for warranty work on something small.