Maybe you haven't noticed, but your life isn't worth much to a lot of people, either.
It depends on how distant they are from being/knowing you, and whether distance has any bearing on how much they care about someone, and whether they're bought into the concept that money can be more important than people.
There's quite a large number of people who'd sell you for $200. Especially if they think you're fighting in Iraq to get bin Laden.
The question "are you smpoole7" is asked in the context of a transaction in progress or about to be initiated. The bank doesn't just walk up to me every once in awhile and ask for my credentials. It asks for my credentials only when I want access to private information and transaction buttons. It asks for them once and I can do many accesses and transactions and then I can tell it I'm done, so next time I want access or a transaction it will ask me for credentials again.
The intent is innate in the fact that the request was made. You still need to ask the simple question "are you the person authorized to do this with the account you're trying to do it from?"
So either you're under-describing what Schneier said, or Schneier has schrewed the poeocsch on the paradigm.
The problem is them being assumed to be useful as identifiers anywhere other than the SSA itself.
The IRS should be issuing tax IDs to everyone and having no interest in your SSN.
The police and department of motor vehicles should likewise be identifying you uniquely and not even asking for your SSN.
Also, the SSN, even if it were a unique identifier, which it is not, should be coupled to another, positive form of ID, like fingerprints.
The problem is the laziness and ignorance of anyone other than the SSA who thinks they can just draft off the SSN system for their identification system.
The bigger problem is the number of total ass-heads who think that a proper national ID system is somehow a violation of their rights. I'd like to see them point to where in the Constitution it says you shouldn't be ennumerable and identifiable. I can show them parts where it says the government is responsible for counting you once and only once, which any person familiar with counting (much less computing) means you have to be distinguishable from everyone else.
The people who are replacing workers with robots are the same people who are de-unionizing school districts and firing teachers en masse.
They know that there's no need for a broad, educated population when your productive workers are an army of robots and computers.
So your conclusion is the opposite of the truth. If less IT staff is required, the school doesn't need to train people to be in IT staffs, so they need fewer teachers, not more.
The auto industry killed older jobs, but actually created more jobs than it killed, because it was, as yet, manual work to forge and assemble the many parts of an automobile.
But when the auto industry subsequently turned to the task of replacing its expensive manual laborers with relatively cheaper robotic workers, the auto industry killed its own jobs.
New industries have combined the two changes. They aren't merely replacing old jobs, they're replacing them with much more efficient new jobs, reducing the total workforce.
And then there's the irony of outsourcing, in which one local job is replaced by 2 or 3 or 5 ultra-cheap foreign jobs. But the people who are managing those jobs are realizing they can still replace their expensive workers with relatively cheaper robots.
The future isn't one of the fallacy of lamenting the buggy-whip. It's real mass unemployment, and the concentration of income and wealth in the hands of people who never actually used their hands to make a living in the first place.
And did Milton consider the total economic cost of that tradeoff?
Did he add the cost of supporting and/or fending off all of those out-of-work people that would be furloughed if the shovels were replaced with tractors?
Did he multiply the cost of completing the project if the shovels were replaced with spoons?
Did he determine whether the project would even be undertaken if not for the cheap availability of generic people and shovels instead of the expensive need for skilled people and tractors?
Or did he merely invoke the fallacy of the excluded middle and satisfy his own rush to cognitive closure and limited view of the consequences as a means of satisfying his own political preconceptions which inexorably had more to do with his personal gain than any overall benefit to the community?
P.S. Ayn Rand can go to hell, if she's not already building a railroad there.
Well, no, the expensive payware stuff is often expressly designed to employ consultants from the company that designed it.
But what I've noticed is that Linux itself is a much bigger management hassle than Windows is. Untrained people manage their own Windows installations fairly easily (i.e., it runs with less intervention, and can update 99% of its installed software without any intervention). Even trained people (even I) have trouble just getting the average Linux distro to a basic, usable state, then updating it with typical software on occasion.
Even the distros that are specifically designed for minimal h4xx0r talent are only truly canned for a small subset of hardware configurations.
The ultimate answer here is that anyone who does a trade study on which software to use and doesn't make a realistic assessment of the total-cost-to-own has failed to do a trade study properly. Just saying "is it open source?" is a guarantee of random results.
How does a rant on the inability of the government to stop corporate attacks on itself refute a claim that the government is coordinating attacks on the public?
Hudson, you'll note, says the solution is for we, the people, to get back in control and apply the laws we have.
Being able to look in on the banks' internet communications would be one of our, the people's, tools.
As for this entire scare-fest, I will repeat what I always say in this situation:
THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE
Nor is it private. No more than using a megaphone to do your telecommunications. I know some people want to front the idea that there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy," but those people are blatantly ignorant of the origins and construction of the Internet. Or else they're well aware of them, and are trying to make the proles believe that the Internet dosn't pass every packet of your data along a sequence of loosely-related public and private linkages, any of which has every right to read and laugh at the data flowing through its equipment.
I have a doctor (a sort of specialist, my GP is a Hindu) who is a Muslim. In fact, the entire practice he's partner to is blatantly Islamic (kind of ironic given the sectarian identifications of the local religious fanatics, who are among the more whackjob and militant forms of xtianity). Arabic inscriptions of generic inspirational quotes from the Koran with English translations on the usual decorations on the walls, and all.
Did I care whether he thought randomness was natural or mystical? No. So long as he knew how to do the math and pick the diagnostic procedures and the drugs once probability was involved, and didn't think the cure was the result of prayer, I had no problem with his personal belief system.
He did a bang-up job diagnosing and treating my problem. Super-efficient, too. I never spent more than 5 minutes with him personally. We discussed status and chose the next step (though I have to admit that's partly because I'm no dope and knew all of the data and most of the answers before each meeting). And his nurses were hot. Which always improves a medical situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you haven't noticed, but your life isn't worth much to a lot of people, either.
It depends on how distant they are from being/knowing you, and whether distance has any bearing on how much they care about someone, and whether they're bought into the concept that money can be more important than people.
There's quite a large number of people who'd sell you for $200. Especially if they think you're fighting in Iraq to get bin Laden.
I'm not sure how it's different.
The question "are you smpoole7" is asked in the context of a transaction in progress or about to be initiated. The bank doesn't just walk up to me every once in awhile and ask for my credentials. It asks for my credentials only when I want access to private information and transaction buttons. It asks for them once and I can do many accesses and transactions and then I can tell it I'm done, so next time I want access or a transaction it will ask me for credentials again.
The intent is innate in the fact that the request was made. You still need to ask the simple question "are you the person authorized to do this with the account you're trying to do it from?"
So either you're under-describing what Schneier said, or Schneier has schrewed the poeocsch on the paradigm.
So, uh, who gives a shit if we have national ID, cards or no cards?
Not having them is a much slipperier slope than having them.
The problem is them being assumed to be useful as identifiers anywhere other than the SSA itself.
The IRS should be issuing tax IDs to everyone and having no interest in your SSN.
The police and department of motor vehicles should likewise be identifying you uniquely and not even asking for your SSN.
Also, the SSN, even if it were a unique identifier, which it is not, should be coupled to another, positive form of ID, like fingerprints.
The problem is the laziness and ignorance of anyone other than the SSA who thinks they can just draft off the SSN system for their identification system.
The bigger problem is the number of total ass-heads who think that a proper national ID system is somehow a violation of their rights. I'd like to see them point to where in the Constitution it says you shouldn't be ennumerable and identifiable. I can show them parts where it says the government is responsible for counting you once and only once, which any person familiar with counting (much less computing) means you have to be distinguishable from everyone else.
Those who do who aren't from any exit will answer: Nah, really, it don't.
No, it creates fewer jobs, just in new fields, while killing more jobs in existing ones.
The people who are replacing workers with robots are the same people who are de-unionizing school districts and firing teachers en masse.
They know that there's no need for a broad, educated population when your productive workers are an army of robots and computers.
So your conclusion is the opposite of the truth. If less IT staff is required, the school doesn't need to train people to be in IT staffs, so they need fewer teachers, not more.
The past is not the future.
The auto industry killed older jobs, but actually created more jobs than it killed, because it was, as yet, manual work to forge and assemble the many parts of an automobile.
But when the auto industry subsequently turned to the task of replacing its expensive manual laborers with relatively cheaper robotic workers, the auto industry killed its own jobs.
New industries have combined the two changes. They aren't merely replacing old jobs, they're replacing them with much more efficient new jobs, reducing the total workforce.
And then there's the irony of outsourcing, in which one local job is replaced by 2 or 3 or 5 ultra-cheap foreign jobs. But the people who are managing those jobs are realizing they can still replace their expensive workers with relatively cheaper robots.
The future isn't one of the fallacy of lamenting the buggy-whip. It's real mass unemployment, and the concentration of income and wealth in the hands of people who never actually used their hands to make a living in the first place.
There's a third option, one which the so-called 1% are working hard to reach:
you can have a class of rich folks being served personally by the rest of the population.
And by "served personally" I exclude nothing that one human can do for another for money.
Then we'll give them jobs stuffing people into the train cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusher_(railway_station_attendant)
And did Milton consider the total economic cost of that tradeoff?
Did he add the cost of supporting and/or fending off all of those out-of-work people that would be furloughed if the shovels were replaced with tractors?
Did he multiply the cost of completing the project if the shovels were replaced with spoons?
Did he determine whether the project would even be undertaken if not for the cheap availability of generic people and shovels instead of the expensive need for skilled people and tractors?
Or did he merely invoke the fallacy of the excluded middle and satisfy his own rush to cognitive closure and limited view of the consequences as a means of satisfying his own political preconceptions which inexorably had more to do with his personal gain than any overall benefit to the community?
P.S. Ayn Rand can go to hell, if she's not already building a railroad there.
Well, no, the expensive payware stuff is often expressly designed to employ consultants from the company that designed it.
But what I've noticed is that Linux itself is a much bigger management hassle than Windows is. Untrained people manage their own Windows installations fairly easily (i.e., it runs with less intervention, and can update 99% of its installed software without any intervention). Even trained people (even I) have trouble just getting the average Linux distro to a basic, usable state, then updating it with typical software on occasion.
Even the distros that are specifically designed for minimal h4xx0r talent are only truly canned for a small subset of hardware configurations.
The ultimate answer here is that anyone who does a trade study on which software to use and doesn't make a realistic assessment of the total-cost-to-own has failed to do a trade study properly. Just saying "is it open source?" is a guarantee of random results.
The primary goal of "nanny-state" bleaters is the elimination of taxes.
There's a whole website for them:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/07/102-things-not-to-do/
e<Tab> 42
I thought you were going to be *shocked* to find that a company that writes skinner boxes is run as a skinner box.
Software that isn't designed to require constant hands-on maintenance costs jobs.
OSS is not always in that category, sadly.
I read it. It's ranty. And where did I say I disagree with it?
I don't follow.
How does a rant on the inability of the government to stop corporate attacks on itself refute a claim that the government is coordinating attacks on the public?
Hudson, you'll note, says the solution is for we, the people, to get back in control and apply the laws we have.
Being able to look in on the banks' internet communications would be one of our, the people's, tools.
As for this entire scare-fest, I will repeat what I always say in this situation:
THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE
Nor is it private. No more than using a megaphone to do your telecommunications. I know some people want to front the idea that there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy," but those people are blatantly ignorant of the origins and construction of the Internet. Or else they're well aware of them, and are trying to make the proles believe that the Internet dosn't pass every packet of your data along a sequence of loosely-related public and private linkages, any of which has every right to read and laugh at the data flowing through its equipment.
The Catholic Church would agree with your statement that God created evolution.
Took them over a hundred years, and, ironcally, they insisted on doing the science for their own selves, but they now accept it.
They still haven't come around on Creationism, though.
And then there are the parts that seem to have been written to justify Mo's actions when caught with little boys...
If he won't examine male patients, he won't end up qualified to practice medicine.
If he manages to graduate from medical school, it would have to be with a research degree.
I have a doctor (a sort of specialist, my GP is a Hindu) who is a Muslim. In fact, the entire practice he's partner to is blatantly Islamic (kind of ironic given the sectarian identifications of the local religious fanatics, who are among the more whackjob and militant forms of xtianity). Arabic inscriptions of generic inspirational quotes from the Koran with English translations on the usual decorations on the walls, and all.
Did I care whether he thought randomness was natural or mystical? No. So long as he knew how to do the math and pick the diagnostic procedures and the drugs once probability was involved, and didn't think the cure was the result of prayer, I had no problem with his personal belief system.
He did a bang-up job diagnosing and treating my problem. Super-efficient, too. I never spent more than 5 minutes with him personally. We discussed status and chose the next step (though I have to admit that's partly because I'm no dope and knew all of the data and most of the answers before each meeting). And his nurses were hot. Which always improves a medical situation.
Actually there's nothing random given the multiverse theory.
I can't perceive the multiverse.
Don't worry, there's a universe where you can.
But only by chance.
or just let them nudge us. it'd save us a bundle on massages.
no, it was posted. and, imo, that concept blows.
i want to see a robot actually build a copy of itself, not get stuck in its own mess and say it "grew"