Health care is an area of the economy that does not properly respond to market forces. It has almost unlimited demand (no-one is ever "too" healthy) and a limited supply. There are public benefits to universal health care (eg immunization) that will only apply if everyone has access. The only way that can occur is via some form of government intervention.
So to all the so-called libertarians that believe "the state should not be in the business of providing health care at taxpayer expense. Period.", please explain how a) basic health care is a "business" and b) how benefits of such things as immunization can be supplied without suffering the "tragedy of the commons"?
You can believe all of that, yet your signature says what it says? Quantum theory is one of the most insightful discoveries about how the universe works.
How can you believe that an imaginary friend in the sky split himself into 3 pieces, one of which looked like a homo sapiens, then seeded the homo sapien looking piece into a virginal teenager, causing her to be cast out of her community. Then, when the human bit of this imaginary creature has grown old enough, let it be killed in one of the most cruel and nasty ways after being beaten almost to death. Or that somehow this story is supposed to teach us all to be "good, gentle, loving and peaceful".
Finally, after all of this violence, some of your associates seem to think that all of the current drinkers of this Kool Aid story will go off somewhere nice, while everybody else gets one more chance to drink the same Kool Aid, otherwise they get to live in the slums of the universe for the rest of eternity.
Here's the deal. It ain't "Either Jesus Christ is God, or He's not." It's either "God" is a stupid concept, unnecessary to the continued existence of the Universe, and also unnecessary to the continuing improvement of human existence, or all of this improbable hogwash about someone being killed 'cos of what some other non-existent "first human" eating a fruit and "discovering" good and evil is true.
You say that christian "tolerance" requires you to tolerate people's right to choose whatever religious belief they want, but that implies that atheism is in some way a "belief" or associated with "religion". Atheism does not negate moral or ethical behaviour, nor does it condone anarchy. It just says that unless someone can come up with just one iota of proof, all of the stories about this imaginary friend and its behaviour is fiction.
I can tolerate people believing all of this nonsense, but they should just keep quiet about it. It's embarrassing to both of us to have to see it.
Most of the Visa/MC credit contactless cards do not encrypt the data. The main reason is that it's a) impossible to distribute hardware SAMs to all of the readers that could contain keys for all of the possible different card issuers, and b) the assumption is/was that the data is the same as what is on the mag stripe, so why encrypt it?
The actual comms between card and reader are encrypted for any writes to the card, but the majority of these transactions do not write to the card, just read the public read-only areas.
The details of how this works are publicly available here.
Contactless smartcards comply with ISO14443. Guess what... so do RFIDs. The ATM cards that people are talking about have the same information that is on the magnetic stripe encoded onto the chip. They use the EMV format that was defined for contact cards, with a different application identifier. The data includes the information that is on tracks 1 & 2 of the card. They do not include the CCV number that is printed on the back of the card.
The ONLY difference is that instead of swiping the card, you wave it in the proximity field of the RF reader.
The security PROBLEM with contactless credit/debit cards is that the card details can be read at a distance. It's the same as if someone used one of those pocket mag swipe readers to capture exactly the SAME details.
With a credit card, there is not as much of an issue as with a debit card. Credit cardholders are protected against fraud by legislation. If you contest the charge, it is up to the merchant and/or acquirer to prove the transaction to the issuer.
With a debit card, there is a greater risk. Normally a debit card requires a PIN or signature, but you are not as well protected against fraud, and the money comes out of your account first.
A bit of actual explanation of this from Visa/MC would make it easier to at least make an informed decision, but their marketing people are DUMB.
I work with this stuff every day, and Visa/MC still can't actually work out how to make all of this work, especially offline for low value transactions like transit.
Only the claims have any real standing when testing a patent... the first claim is for:
An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.
So this patent only covers an interface that communicates over a synchronous digital link, ie, ye old PBX. It doesn't cover any of the VoIP/SIP/RTP solutions. The first claim is too broad, in that PBX's have had this sort of controller/logic etc, so the subsequent claims come into play.
Claim 3 talks about receiving digital data from a public branch exchange (PBX) over a synchronous digital communication link; so it's talking about POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), admittedly over the newer digital circuits. Again, not VoIP/SIP/RTP.
Claim 6 talks about a "medium" wherein the input device data includes a key press and hook state commands over asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link;. So if you're not sending the equivalent of key presses and on/off hook states over the IP link, again, you're outside the bounds of the patent.
The product includes a catalyst that causes polluting compounds to break down into water, CO2 etc. As a basic chemistry education would tell you, a catalyst is not actually consumed or produced during a reaction, so it's not "absorbing" anything.
The increase in cost of 30% applies to the concrete products, not things like paint. The increase in cost for paint was basically negligible, quoted as $120 for a five storey building.
So this product is not "useless", nor is it "tailored to ignorant people". It appears that it has a dramatic effect on airborne pollutants for a reasonable expenditure.
A true "conservative" believes in the rule of law and not in a vague "War" on a noun or tactic. Can you explain exactly how we "win" this so-called war?
It is not a war. What terrorists do is illegal. They conspire to carry out acts to commit murder, cause death and grevious bodily harm to others. There are plenty of laws, local, state, federal and international that cover these activities, along with the associated penalties and punishments.
In the UK, it was police actions that caught IRA bombers and courts where thew were prosecuted and sentenced.
In the 90s, it was police action that caught the Trade Center bombers and courts where they were prosecuted and sentenced.
In the Oklahoma bombings, it was police action that caught McVeigh and his cohorts and courts where they were prosecuted and sentenced.
In Indonesia, it was police action that caught the Bali bombers and courts that sentenced them to death.
What the terrorists want is to cause fear and panic. They want to cause us to throw out our hardwon and defended rights and freedoms.
You are right, the terrorists can only win if we let them, and right now, under this administration, with its ill-defined and badly executed strategies and tactics, that is exactly what we are doing.
Um... to the uninformed, we had gun control laws long before the reaction to the Port Arthur massacres. What happened after that was that the gun control laws were increased dramatically. The only people who have been in any way affected by that are those that hunt and shoot. The rest of us were not affected one way or the other.
We don't have a 2nd amendment, so we never had any "right to bear arms" to be lost.
As for the actual proposal, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the government actually tried at some point to implement a firewall similar to Singapore/China. We have a bunch of reactionary conservatives in power, and it would appeal to the "omg, what about the children" nuts.
Mahatma Gandhi defeated an empire by walking to the ocean and making salt. Isn't that the sort of image of a leader of a movement for freedom that we want?
Re:Linus has limited engineering future vision
on
Linus Says No to 'Specs'
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The world of computing is in crisis. After 40 years of 'pro' development, computing is still a human-driven craft instead of the extremely precise arm of engineering that it could so easily have become through its well-defined subject matter.
It is precisely these sorts of statements that show how far away we are from software "engineering". Software has exactly NOT got a "well-defined subject matter". The subject matter of software is completely variable and ill-defined. The elucidation of requirements is an almost impossible task.
The "reality" which he so seems to praise is THE PROBLEM in software engineering, and not something to be endorsed or supported.
But the reality that Linus is stating is just that, reality. The nascent field of software engineering has not yet been able to clearly enunciate what "THE PROBLEM" is, let alone come up with something approaching a methodology and practice to solve it.
Until the field can clearly state what the area it tackles includes and excludes, software development will remain closer to craft/architecture than engineering in its methods.
The GPL is a licence (*not* a contract) that a copyright holder grants to you to allow you to do certain things that you normally would not be allowed to do (copy, distribute, use etc). The copyright holder also requires that if you do one of those things, distribute, you must also do a few more things (make the original and your changes to it available to others with the same grant of rights and conditions).
What RMS said was that if you use GPLed software at a web site, then that is *use*, not *distribution*, so the requirements don't apply.
BUT, they're considering adding a requirement to GPL3 that if you offer to distribute the source from the web site (with a "download here" button or similar), that anyone who does so *also* has to have the same (or similar) mechanism for your source *and* their changes.
It's a no brainer. If you don't like the new rule, use GPL2, or don't make your source available *from the web site*.
Where there may be real problems, mixing GPL2 code that does not have the "this version or later" clause with GPL3+ code. Linux, for example, does not have the "this version or later" clause, so you won't be able to use GPL3 code in Linux.
That's not true, just not yet... once SVG has been integrated, you'll be able to do stuff like Inkscape. With a Google File System, it'd be faster to do some image transforms over the web than locally.
With sufficient bandwidth, and standardisation, HTTP (note, not HTML, but HTTP) is a perfectly adequate application level transport.
Combined with XForms and/or XUL and/or XAML, there's very little reason to have local processing/storage. It's back to the future, with all of the CPU power "somewhere else"...
By centralizing their software buying decisions in their federal educational bureaucracy, Australia's education establishment persists in error when a smaller, more nimble organization would moved on to a more optimal solution, i.e. using software which isn't an expensive, kludgy, virus-and-security hole riddled piece of crap.
By not studying other countries, Americans show themselves to be ill-informed. The Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of 6 states and 2 territories. Each state has its own department of education which is responsible for K12 education in that state. The Federal government also has a department of education which is primarily responsible for higher education, ie Universities.
Due to our states having relatively (to US states) low populations, it does not make sense to devolve management of education to a lower level of government, however, most states allow individual schools flexibility in delivery of curriculum.
So your argument that the cause of bad buying decisions being a result of centralisation at a Federal level is a "...kludgy... piece of crap".
Slashdot Mirror
Health care is an area of the economy that does not properly respond to market forces. It has almost unlimited demand (no-one is ever "too" healthy) and a limited supply. There are public benefits to universal health care (eg immunization) that will only apply if everyone has access. The only way that can occur is via some form of government intervention.
So to all the so-called libertarians that believe "the state should not be in the business of providing health care at taxpayer expense. Period.", please explain how a) basic health care is a "business" and b) how benefits of such things as immunization can be supplied without suffering the "tragedy of the commons"?
You can believe all of that, yet your signature says what it says? Quantum theory is one of the most insightful discoveries about how the universe works.
How can you believe that an imaginary friend in the sky split himself into 3 pieces, one of which looked like a homo sapiens, then seeded the homo sapien looking piece into a virginal teenager, causing her to be cast out of her community. Then, when the human bit of this imaginary creature has grown old enough, let it be killed in one of the most cruel and nasty ways after being beaten almost to death. Or that somehow this story is supposed to teach us all to be "good, gentle, loving and peaceful".
Finally, after all of this violence, some of your associates seem to think that all of the current drinkers of this Kool Aid story will go off somewhere nice, while everybody else gets one more chance to drink the same Kool Aid, otherwise they get to live in the slums of the universe for the rest of eternity.
Here's the deal. It ain't "Either Jesus Christ is God, or He's not." It's either "God" is a stupid concept, unnecessary to the continued existence of the Universe, and also unnecessary to the continuing improvement of human existence, or all of this improbable hogwash about someone being killed 'cos of what some other non-existent "first human" eating a fruit and "discovering" good and evil is true.
You say that christian "tolerance" requires you to tolerate people's right to choose whatever religious belief they want, but that implies that atheism is in some way a "belief" or associated with "religion". Atheism does not negate moral or ethical behaviour, nor does it condone anarchy. It just says that unless someone can come up with just one iota of proof, all of the stories about this imaginary friend and its behaviour is fiction.
I can tolerate people believing all of this nonsense, but they should just keep quiet about it. It's embarrassing to both of us to have to see it.
Most of the Visa/MC credit contactless cards do not encrypt the data. The main reason is that it's a) impossible to distribute hardware SAMs to all of the readers that could contain keys for all of the possible different card issuers, and b) the assumption is/was that the data is the same as what is on the mag stripe, so why encrypt it?
The actual comms between card and reader are encrypted for any writes to the card, but the majority of these transactions do not write to the card, just read the public read-only areas.
The details of how this works are publicly available here.
Contactless smartcards comply with ISO14443. Guess what... so do RFIDs. The ATM cards that people are talking about have the same information that is on the magnetic stripe encoded onto the chip. They use the EMV format that was defined for contact cards, with a different application identifier. The data includes the information that is on tracks 1 & 2 of the card. They do not include the CCV number that is printed on the back of the card.
The ONLY difference is that instead of swiping the card, you wave it in the proximity field of the RF reader.
The security PROBLEM with contactless credit/debit cards is that the card details can be read at a distance. It's the same as if someone used one of those pocket mag swipe readers to capture exactly the SAME details.
With a credit card, there is not as much of an issue as with a debit card. Credit cardholders are protected against fraud by legislation. If you contest the charge, it is up to the merchant and/or acquirer to prove the transaction to the issuer.
With a debit card, there is a greater risk. Normally a debit card requires a PIN or signature, but you are not as well protected against fraud, and the money comes out of your account first.
A bit of actual explanation of this from Visa/MC would make it easier to at least make an informed decision, but their marketing people are DUMB.
I work with this stuff every day, and Visa/MC still can't actually work out how to make all of this work, especially offline for low value transactions like transit.
Only the claims have any real standing when testing a patent... the first claim is for:
An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.
So this patent only covers an interface that communicates over a synchronous digital link, ie, ye old PBX. It doesn't cover any of the VoIP/SIP/RTP solutions. The first claim is too broad, in that PBX's have had this sort of controller/logic etc, so the subsequent claims come into play.
Claim 3 talks about receiving digital data from a public branch exchange (PBX) over a synchronous digital communication link; so it's talking about POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), admittedly over the newer digital circuits. Again, not VoIP/SIP/RTP.
Claim 6 talks about a "medium" wherein the input device data includes a key press and hook state commands over asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link;. So if you're not sending the equivalent of key presses and on/off hook states over the IP link, again, you're outside the bounds of the patent.
Too much raving, not enough reading...
The product includes a catalyst that causes polluting compounds to break down into water, CO2 etc. As a basic chemistry education would tell you, a catalyst is not actually consumed or produced during a reaction, so it's not "absorbing" anything.
The increase in cost of 30% applies to the concrete products, not things like paint. The increase in cost for paint was basically negligible, quoted as $120 for a five storey building.
So this product is not "useless", nor is it "tailored to ignorant people". It appears that it has a dramatic effect on airborne pollutants for a reasonable expenditure.
A true "conservative" believes in the rule of law and not in a vague "War" on a noun or tactic. Can you explain exactly how we "win" this so-called war?
It is not a war. What terrorists do is illegal. They conspire to carry out acts to commit murder, cause death and grevious bodily harm to others. There are plenty of laws, local, state, federal and international that cover these activities, along with the associated penalties and punishments.
In the UK, it was police actions that caught IRA bombers and courts where thew were prosecuted and sentenced.
In the 90s, it was police action that caught the Trade Center bombers and courts where they were prosecuted and sentenced.
In the Oklahoma bombings, it was police action that caught McVeigh and his cohorts and courts where they were prosecuted and sentenced.
In Indonesia, it was police action that caught the Bali bombers and courts that sentenced them to death.
What the terrorists want is to cause fear and panic. They want to cause us to throw out our hardwon and defended rights and freedoms.
You are right, the terrorists can only win if we let them, and right now, under this administration, with its ill-defined and badly executed strategies and tactics, that is exactly what we are doing.
Um... to the uninformed, we had gun control laws long before the reaction to the Port Arthur massacres. What happened after that was that the gun control laws were increased dramatically. The only people who have been in any way affected by that are those that hunt and shoot. The rest of us were not affected one way or the other.
We don't have a 2nd amendment, so we never had any "right to bear arms" to be lost.
As for the actual proposal, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the government actually tried at some point to implement a firewall similar to Singapore/China. We have a bunch of reactionary conservatives in power, and it would appeal to the "omg, what about the children" nuts.
Mahatma Gandhi defeated an empire by walking to the ocean and making salt. Isn't that the sort of image of a leader of a movement for freedom that we want?
It is precisely these sorts of statements that show how far away we are from software "engineering". Software has exactly NOT got a "well-defined subject matter". The subject matter of software is completely variable and ill-defined. The elucidation of requirements is an almost impossible task.
The "reality" which he so seems to praise is THE PROBLEM in software engineering, and not something to be endorsed or supported.
But the reality that Linus is stating is just that, reality. The nascent field of software engineering has not yet been able to clearly enunciate what "THE PROBLEM" is, let alone come up with something approaching a methodology and practice to solve it.
Until the field can clearly state what the area it tackles includes and excludes, software development will remain closer to craft/architecture than engineering in its methods.
The GPL is a licence (*not* a contract) that a copyright holder grants to you to allow you to do certain things that you normally would not be allowed to do (copy, distribute, use etc). The copyright holder also requires that if you do one of those things, distribute, you must also do a few more things (make the original and your changes to it available to others with the same grant of rights and conditions).
What RMS said was that if you use GPLed software at a web site, then that is *use*, not *distribution*, so the requirements don't apply.
BUT, they're considering adding a requirement to GPL3 that if you offer to distribute the source from the web site (with a "download here" button or similar), that anyone who does so *also* has to have the same (or similar) mechanism for your source *and* their changes.
It's a no brainer. If you don't like the new rule, use GPL2, or don't make your source available *from the web site*.
Where there may be real problems, mixing GPL2 code that does not have the "this version or later" clause with GPL3+ code. Linux, for example, does not have the "this version or later" clause, so you won't be able to use GPL3 code in Linux.
That's not true, just not yet... once SVG has been integrated, you'll be able to do stuff like Inkscape. With a Google File System, it'd be faster to do some image transforms over the web than locally.
With sufficient bandwidth, and standardisation, HTTP (note, not HTML, but HTTP) is a perfectly adequate application level transport.
Combined with XForms and/or XUL and/or XAML, there's very little reason to have local processing/storage. It's back to the future, with all of the CPU power "somewhere else"...
By centralizing their software buying decisions in their federal educational bureaucracy, Australia's education establishment persists in error when a smaller, more nimble organization would moved on to a more optimal solution, i.e. using software which isn't an expensive, kludgy, virus-and-security hole riddled piece of crap.
By not studying other countries, Americans show themselves to be ill-informed. The Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of 6 states and 2 territories. Each state has its own department of education which is responsible for K12 education in that state. The Federal government also has a department of education which is primarily responsible for higher education, ie Universities.
Due to our states having relatively (to US states) low populations, it does not make sense to devolve management of education to a lower level of government, however, most states allow individual schools flexibility in delivery of curriculum.
So your argument that the cause of bad buying decisions being a result of centralisation at a Federal level is a "...kludgy... piece of crap".