But as you have noted, you are amazed at how many people believe that compared to your beliefs. In a way, you just admited that people have their own opinions regardless of you agreeing with them.
What? Yes, people have opinions that differ from mine. Never denied it; if that wasn't the case, I would need to try to correct this erroneous magical thinking regarding that piece of cloth. The point is that, despite their popularity, those opinions are not rational, are based on a confusion of symbol with thing.
We are talking about the impresion someone makes on others. He may very well be other wise qualified but people don't believe through his own actions that he is patriotic enough for them to vote for them.
If the "action" that leads a person to believe that Obama is not patriotic is him standing respectfully, but not putting his hand over his heart, during the national anthem, that person is an idiot. Look here and here and here and see how people stand during the anthem; I see some hands on hearts, but not a lot.
Where is the problem other then you don't like people thinking badly of Obama?
If you think badly of Obama because of his position on actual issues, fine. He's got some that I'm not pleased with myself. If you think badly of him because you don't like his taste in neckties, or because he's got goofy ears, or because of his pose during the nation anthem, than you're a fool.
Those actions have become tradition and people like you and me either follow those traditions or we don't
No, this hasn't become tradition. That's the point. Look at the video links I provided. See how many ordinary Americans are not following this supposed "tradition"?
The fact that Congress has attempted to decree a certain pose during the playing of the anthem is irrelevant; might as well claim that someone clearly doesn't love their parents because they didn't properly observe the "tradition" of Parent's Day on the fourth Sunday of July.
For some people, it bothers them, for others, it doesn't, but it is their opinion and they have every right to have one
Of course they have a right to their opinion. No one is proposing pointing a gun at them to force them to change it. But we also have the right to speak out when we encounter opinions that are based on incorrect information or irrational thinking.
And since when has employment been a requirement to vote? Stay-at-home parents and retirees are still entitled to cast their ballots, as are self-employed people.
All states provide non driver's licenses picture ID for free or very cheap
"Very cheap" is relative. And irrelevant - NO poll tax can be charged.
if someone can't be arsed enough to go get it, who cares?
Anyone who thinks equality under law for all is a good idea, cares. I'm sorry that you apparently aren't part of that group.
the people claiming it is hard to prove you are a legal citizen over age of 18 and eligible to vote want to shoot the vote to 20 million ILLEGAL aliens. You know I am right, doncha?
No, I know that the last thing someone here illegally is going to do is expose themselves by committing voter fraud. This paranoia about illegal aliens voting is simply batshit crazyness and it's a shame you've bought it.
It isn't like they didn't know the importance of the flag and transfer traditions and customs from other allegiances to the use of it. Flags plays an important part of a countries life back then, perhaps even more then today.
A flag is "important" only for its use as a graphical marker. All the pish-posh about "respect for the flag" is the worst sort of confusion of the symbol with the thing, of the map with the territory. It amazes me how many of the people who get worked up about "flag desecration" have no objection to the destruction of the legal system that actually constitutes the nation, nor to the pollution and desecration of the actual real estate, the "land" of the "land of the free".
I know it's pedantic expecting more from someone who wants to lead the country but arguing against that is the equivalent of saying the guy who showed up for an interview of a job paying 6 digits wearing a wife beater T-shirt blue jeans with wholes in it and flip-flops deserves just as much consideration as the guy who came wearing a suit and tie.
No, it's much more like making a big deal out of what sort of knot the guy uses in his necktie.
Some people express respect during the ceremony by placing their hand over their heart, some do it by standing at attention, some do it by standing with head bowed, some do it by singing along. At Orioles games here in Baltimore (home of that anthem, thank you very much) we respectfully claim the anthem as ours by yelling "O!" for Orioles on the "O say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave..." line.
Citizens have a variety of opinions on the topic, and the United States Congress has no authority to decree what constitutes a proper expression of respect. (Except perhaps as it relates to rituals carried out by members of the armed forces). The very idea that they have attempted to so codify the behavior of citizens is more offensive than anything one could do to the flag or to the national anthem.
Re:Voting the Open-Source Way
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In Indiana (where the voter ID started and ended up with SCOTUS), we have free ID's and transportation if you need it.
Interesting about the transportation, I'd like to see more information about that. Have a link?
Not everybody even has a birth certificate, you know. I had a housemate who didn't; as I recall, she had to go back to her home state and obtain some affidavits attesting to her existence before she could get a driver's license.
There are really no excuses and no reason to not have to prove who you are.
There are really no excuses for throwing obstacles in the way of people's exercise of the franchise, when the claimed problem of "voter fraud" is non-existent.
Inside the voting booth, you find several stacks of paper, one for each voting alternative.
On my ballot here in Baltimore County, Maryland, in addition to the presidential race (6 candidates), there's a Congressional seat (3 candidates), four judges, two statewide ballot questions, and 10 county ballot questions. There are 7*4*4*3^15-1 = 1,607,077,583 possible ways to fill out a ballot, not counting write-ins and assuming that you're not going to show up and cast a completely blank ballot.
That's a lot of stacks of paper.
Even if we had separate stacks for each of the 18 contests, it gets pretty unmanageable.
Which only registers men, and only 18 to 25, and only the able-bodied. And of course many do not register out of religious or philosophical objection.
Re:Voting the Open-Source Way
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Until we get a handle on voter fraud, we'll never have free and fair elections.
We do have a handle on voter fraud. It is so rare as to be practically non-existent. Between 2002 and 2005, the Department of Justice convicted just two dozen people for voter fraud. Eight a year. Not exactly a pressing problem.
What's so wrong with voter ID?
I know it's difficult for many middle-class suburban Americans to grasp this, but millions of people - mostly poor - don't have identification cards. They don't drive, they don't ride on airplanes, they don't have bank accounts. If they wanted to get an ID, they might have to take a day off of work (already an impossibility for many), travel to the other side of the county (without a car), and pay a substantial (to them) sum.
Until such time as IDs can be obtained easily and for free, requiring them to be displayed to vote is nothing more than a subtle form of poll tax.
I didn't bother reading it all or look at the other aspects of it, I was just looking to show that one is there and people take actions contrary to it and draw conclusions about their patriotism from that.
When a law is made that is against both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, a patriot disregards it. There is no authority provided to the federal government to create such a ritual.
You know who didn't put their heart over the Pledge - indeed, never even recited it? George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. Abe Lincoln. Because the stupid thing wasn't developed until 1892, and not adopted by Congress until 1942.
The idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is a travesty, the sort of ritual that belongs in a Stalinist or Maoist authoritarian state, not in a nation of free people. I don't find it coincidental that the Bellamy salute originally used for the pledge looks like the Nazi salute
If others want to engage in such a ritual, fine; I will stand respectfully by, as I would if I were around religious folks performing a ritual meaningless to me. But performing the "Pledge of Allegiance" is not an indication of patriotism; it is a demonstration of ignorance of the American ideal. It bears the same relation to actual patriotism as a kid praying to Jesus for a new bike for Christmas bears to the Sermon on the Mount.
The only reason the USA has more people incarcerated than China is because China has killed (aka executed) the difference.
Not even close. Even if the high estimates of 10,000 executions in China are true, that doesn't make up the difference between our 2 million and their 1.6 million.
Of course, that 1.6 million doesn't count people in labor camps.
But then, China has a much much higher population. If you include people interred in camps and do the numbers per capita, the U.S. and China are close, at perhaps 737 and 793 per 10,000, respectively.
The world leaders in incarceration rates are the U.S., Russia, and China (if we include political prisoners). Regardless of the order, it's not proud company to be in. And our status as an incarceration nation dates only from the past 20 or 30 years.
When was the last time you heard of anyone getting killed by a meteorite?
It is often claimed that there are no "well documented" cases of a human being killed by a meteorite.
The problem with that statement is that most of the human race lives poorly documented lives.
According to this article, two people were killed by a meteorite last year in the Indian state of Rajasthan. But those reportedly killed were nomads, not folks living in an area where every aspect or their lives was recorded.
The risk of being killed, injured, or having one's property damaged by a meteorite is small, but non zero. If nothing else, barring a highly-effective planetary defense system we will eventually have a Tunguska-level event that will hit a populated area - there being more and more area populated by Homo sapiens with every passing year, the risk grows with time.
But the question of natural risk is non-informative of the legal and ethical implications of deliberately de-orbiting junk that you know might survive to the ground. Let's say that the risk of you getting hit by a meteorite is (pulling a number out of my ass) 1 in 10,000,000,000. Does that mean that it's acceptable for me to take a gun that has a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance of being loaded, point it at you, and pull the trigger? Does the answer to that question change if I have to pay $10 to refrain from shooting? $100? $100,000?
We each do things every day that marginally increase the risk to other human beings. Figuring out what is an acceptable amount to increase somebody's risk is a hard enough problem that most of us simply ignore it most of the time.
I'm assuming you are thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems and not some other very recent development, there is nothing that says a computer cannot do math/make proofs. Only that with a finite set of axioms, a computer (or a person) cannot prove an infinite number of things.
Godel doesn't say that an infinite number of propositions cannot be proved from a finite number of axioms. An infinite number of propositions about geometry can be proven from the handful of axioms of Euclid; there are an infinite number of right triangles, for example, and if we had an infinite set of geometry students we could keep each of them busy with trivial proofs about them like "Prove that angle ABC is 42.2718 degrees".
What Godel says is that in any reasonably complex system, there exist propositions which are true but cannot be proven.
The right way is a money order. The USPS actually issues money orders for this very purpose, and they charge only a very nominal fee on top of it.
If I'm sending large amounts, a money order is worth the hassle; but having to go to the P.O., stand in line, fill out the paperwork, and pay the fee, isn't worth it when compared to the small risk of $20 bill into a birthday card. or even paying a small debt with mailed cash.
didn't you know the USPS recomends you not send cash through the mail
If Knuth is right, it's safer to send cash than a check. Intercept cash, you only get that amount; intercept a check, and you can drain my whole checking account.
If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.
And how well can we expect that to be enforced?
Right now, there are millions of in-car transmitters out there used for relaying satellite radio to car stereos. They cause all sorts of interference with "authorized radio communications". But since they were only interfering with NPR broadcasts, rather than those of someone with money, rather than take serious action against XM the FCC agreed to let them send out cheap useless ferrite beads and leave it up to customers to install them.
But it seems like such a short jump from there to Coca Cola declaring all rights over 'red'.
Too late. In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., SCOTUS held that, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark." They awarded trademark rights to "green-gold" to Qualitex.
But of course, the issues are very different. Even at the physical level - most matter is opaque to the visible spectrum but transparent to radio.
LONDON (AP) -- A computer containing banking security details of more than 1 million people has been sold on eBay for $64, bank officials said Tuesday -- the latest in a series of losses of personal data in the UK.
The computer contained account numbers, passwords, cell phone numbers and signatures. It belonged to MailSource UK -- an arm of Graphic Data, an archiving company that holds financial information for Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest and American Express.
Laptops and hard disks containing sensitive corporate data are readily available at auction sites. Researchers paid $10 for a hard disk from eBay which came with access codes to the secure intranet of one of Europe's largest financial services groups.
It was the first of 100 disks and laptops purchased as spare and used parts from internet auction sites as part of a study into the accessibility of information from lost laptops and hard disks.
In the study by security specialists Pointsec Mobile Technologies, seven out of ten of the disks, all of which were supposedly "wiped-clean" or "re-formatted," contained readable information.
Fortunately, disk encryption mitigates what could be disasters:
Counter terrorism police are today investigating the discovery of a Home Office laptop and encrypted data disc - apparently bought on eBay. The confidential disc was discovered when the laptop was brought in for servicing. We have a great viewpoint from Brian Spector, an IT content protection expert.
"With the statistics showing that nearly 500 government devices have gone missing since 2001, it was only a matter of time before a confidential disc inadvertently ended up on Ebay. Luckily, the public sector finally seems to be learning from repeated mistakes, as the laptop and disc were encrypted..."- Brian Spector, General Manager for Content Protection Group, Workshare
If the servers are locked in a room with limited access (like, oh, say, 95+% of servers in the corporate world), then the probably not.
It has limited access - until a larger drive needs to be installed, and the the old one ends up in the spare parts bin and eventually gets sold as surplus, and somebody gets it home and finds your medical records on it.
Or, the service is in a locked room with limited access - but the DVD-Rs with the backups get lost on the way to the off-site storage facility.
Confidential data has been exposed in the past via both of these sorts of scenarios. Yes, perfect physical control would prevent the need for them. But it's a poor sort of security plan that relies on one layer being perfect.
The same reasoning applies to why a lab doing non-sensitive work would be subject to the same controls: it's more reliable to say "X for every server" that to say "X for every server of which it's true that Y and Z". Because Y and Z might not be true on that server today, but will tomorrow. Hardware gets moved around, servers get consolidated.
I'm a noob taking a software engineering class at a community college.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you feel free to come into a forum full of software professionals and make sweeping statements.
Yeah. Good luck with that career, young padawan.
But how is that different from working on proprietary software? Working on proprietary software earns a paycheck.
Working on free software can also earn a paycheck. Big projects have funding.
Also, the vast majority of software developers work on bespoke, in-house projects, not things meant to be turned into COTS products. People pull in a free software package to get a job done for their company, and contributing patches back is usually to their benefit.
For example, I wanted to do some automated testing. I found that WebInject did almost, but not quite, what I needed; I made the changes. All this was on the company's dime. With the boss's permission, I contributed the changes back; we benefit in that this new capability will be part of future releases, rather than requiring me to re-integrate.
We win, the community wins. And that's the day-to-day truth of free software: not people working for free in their basements, but skilled professionals sharing ideas to improve the craft of software.
I would change the nexus from some server-in-the-sky to your PC storing/providing authentication. I know that's crazy-talk, being responsible for your own identity and everything. Just call me old-fashioned.
But you can't be trusted for providing your own identification. An identification credential relies on some sort of certifying authority.
"Ok, Mr. Jones, I'll just need a piece of ID to cash this check."
"Fine, here you go."
"Um, what's this? A Polaroid (link for the kids) with your name written on it with a Sharpie? Is this something you made yourself?"
"Sure! Who's better to attest to my identify than me?"
Do you want my PC to answer the question of "Is this guy mpapet?" Might see some interesting posts under your name if it does.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What? Yes, people have opinions that differ from mine. Never denied it; if that wasn't the case, I would need to try to correct this erroneous magical thinking regarding that piece of cloth. The point is that, despite their popularity, those opinions are not rational, are based on a confusion of symbol with thing.
If the "action" that leads a person to believe that Obama is not patriotic is him standing respectfully, but not putting his hand over his heart, during the national anthem, that person is an idiot. Look here and here and here and see how people stand during the anthem; I see some hands on hearts, but not a lot.
If you think badly of Obama because of his position on actual issues, fine. He's got some that I'm not pleased with myself. If you think badly of him because you don't like his taste in neckties, or because he's got goofy ears, or because of his pose during the nation anthem, than you're a fool.
No, this hasn't become tradition. That's the point. Look at the video links I provided. See how many ordinary Americans are not following this supposed "tradition"?
The fact that Congress has attempted to decree a certain pose during the playing of the anthem is irrelevant; might as well claim that someone clearly doesn't love their parents because they didn't properly observe the "tradition" of Parent's Day on the fourth Sunday of July.
Of course they have a right to their opinion. No one is proposing pointing a gun at them to force them to change it. But we also have the right to speak out when we encounter opinions that are based on incorrect information or irrational thinking.
You don't need a photo ID. In fact a voter registration card, plus a birth certificate or Social Security card, is sufficient documentation for employment.
And since when has employment been a requirement to vote? Stay-at-home parents and retirees are still entitled to cast their ballots, as are self-employed people.
"Very cheap" is relative. And irrelevant - NO poll tax can be charged.
Anyone who thinks equality under law for all is a good idea, cares. I'm sorry that you apparently aren't part of that group.
No, I know that the last thing someone here illegally is going to do is expose themselves by committing voter fraud. This paranoia about illegal aliens voting is simply batshit crazyness and it's a shame you've bought it.
According to the Army, those who are "incarcerated, or hospitalized or institutionalized for medical reasons" or "continually confined to a residence, hospital, or institution", are not required to register.
A flag is "important" only for its use as a graphical marker. All the pish-posh about "respect for the flag" is the worst sort of confusion of the symbol with the thing, of the map with the territory. It amazes me how many of the people who get worked up about "flag desecration" have no objection to the destruction of the legal system that actually constitutes the nation, nor to the pollution and desecration of the actual real estate, the "land" of the "land of the free".
No, it's much more like making a big deal out of what sort of knot the guy uses in his necktie.
Some people express respect during the ceremony by placing their hand over their heart, some do it by standing at attention, some do it by standing with head bowed, some do it by singing along. At Orioles games here in Baltimore (home of that anthem, thank you very much) we respectfully claim the anthem as ours by yelling "O!" for Orioles on the "O say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave..." line.
Citizens have a variety of opinions on the topic, and the United States Congress has no authority to decree what constitutes a proper expression of respect. (Except perhaps as it relates to rituals carried out by members of the armed forces). The very idea that they have attempted to so codify the behavior of citizens is more offensive than anything one could do to the flag or to the national anthem.
Interesting about the transportation, I'd like to see more information about that. Have a link?
The ID itself might be free, but one has to provide copies of various documents to get it. Obtaining these documents can be difficult and expensive. When a mother of seven has to choose between paying bills or spending $50 to get a copy of her out-of-state birth certificate in order to get a "free" voter ID card, there's a problem.
Not everybody even has a birth certificate, you know. I had a housemate who didn't; as I recall, she had to go back to her home state and obtain some affidavits attesting to her existence before she could get a driver's license.
There are really no excuses for throwing obstacles in the way of people's exercise of the franchise, when the claimed problem of "voter fraud" is non-existent.
On my ballot here in Baltimore County, Maryland, in addition to the presidential race (6 candidates), there's a Congressional seat (3 candidates), four judges, two statewide ballot questions, and 10 county ballot questions. There are 7*4*4*3^15-1 = 1,607,077,583 possible ways to fill out a ballot, not counting write-ins and assuming that you're not going to show up and cast a completely blank ballot.
That's a lot of stacks of paper.
Even if we had separate stacks for each of the 18 contests, it gets pretty unmanageable.
Which only registers men, and only 18 to 25, and only the able-bodied. And of course many do not register out of religious or philosophical objection.
We do have a handle on voter fraud. It is so rare as to be practically non-existent. Between 2002 and 2005, the Department of Justice convicted just two dozen people for voter fraud. Eight a year. Not exactly a pressing problem.
I know it's difficult for many middle-class suburban Americans to grasp this, but millions of people - mostly poor - don't have identification cards. They don't drive, they don't ride on airplanes, they don't have bank accounts. If they wanted to get an ID, they might have to take a day off of work (already an impossibility for many), travel to the other side of the county (without a car), and pay a substantial (to them) sum.
Until such time as IDs can be obtained easily and for free, requiring them to be displayed to vote is nothing more than a subtle form of poll tax.
When in doubt, remove possibly extraneous search terms. I had to dig, but I found an xj123 model...
When a law is made that is against both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, a patriot disregards it. There is no authority provided to the federal government to create such a ritual.
You know who didn't put their heart over the Pledge - indeed, never even recited it? George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. Abe Lincoln. Because the stupid thing wasn't developed until 1892, and not adopted by Congress until 1942.
The idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is a travesty, the sort of ritual that belongs in a Stalinist or Maoist authoritarian state, not in a nation of free people. I don't find it coincidental that the Bellamy salute originally used for the pledge looks like the Nazi salute
If others want to engage in such a ritual, fine; I will stand respectfully by, as I would if I were around religious folks performing a ritual meaningless to me. But performing the "Pledge of Allegiance" is not an indication of patriotism; it is a demonstration of ignorance of the American ideal. It bears the same relation to actual patriotism as a kid praying to Jesus for a new bike for Christmas bears to the Sermon on the Mount.
Not even close. Even if the high estimates of 10,000 executions in China are true, that doesn't make up the difference between our 2 million and their 1.6 million.
Of course, that 1.6 million doesn't count people in labor camps.
But then, China has a much much higher population. If you include people interred in camps and do the numbers per capita, the U.S. and China are close, at perhaps 737 and 793 per 10,000, respectively.
The world leaders in incarceration rates are the U.S., Russia, and China (if we include political prisoners). Regardless of the order, it's not proud company to be in. And our status as an incarceration nation dates only from the past 20 or 30 years.
It is often claimed that there are no "well documented" cases of a human being killed by a meteorite.
The problem with that statement is that most of the human race lives poorly documented lives.
According to this article, two people were killed by a meteorite last year in the Indian state of Rajasthan. But those reportedly killed were nomads, not folks living in an area where every aspect or their lives was recorded.
Here and is some info about injuries and damage (reportedly) caused by meteor strikes.
The risk of being killed, injured, or having one's property damaged by a meteorite is small, but non zero. If nothing else, barring a highly-effective planetary defense system we will eventually have a Tunguska-level event that will hit a populated area - there being more and more area populated by Homo sapiens with every passing year, the risk grows with time.
But the question of natural risk is non-informative of the legal and ethical implications of deliberately de-orbiting junk that you know might survive to the ground. Let's say that the risk of you getting hit by a meteorite is (pulling a number out of my ass) 1 in 10,000,000,000. Does that mean that it's acceptable for me to take a gun that has a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance of being loaded, point it at you, and pull the trigger? Does the answer to that question change if I have to pay $10 to refrain from shooting? $100? $100,000?
We each do things every day that marginally increase the risk to other human beings. Figuring out what is an acceptable amount to increase somebody's risk is a hard enough problem that most of us simply ignore it most of the time.
Godel doesn't say that an infinite number of propositions cannot be proved from a finite number of axioms. An infinite number of propositions about geometry can be proven from the handful of axioms of Euclid; there are an infinite number of right triangles, for example, and if we had an infinite set of geometry students we could keep each of them busy with trivial proofs about them like "Prove that angle ABC is 42.2718 degrees".
What Godel says is that in any reasonably complex system, there exist propositions which are true but cannot be proven.
If I'm sending large amounts, a money order is worth the hassle; but having to go to the P.O., stand in line, fill out the paperwork, and pay the fee, isn't worth it when compared to the small risk of $20 bill into a birthday card. or even paying a small debt with mailed cash.
Dude. I think you need to take your fucking medication. Or go get a good fuck and relieve some of that fucking stress. Fuckin' A.
A trademark applies only in a specific field of business. That's why both Ford Motors and Ford Models can claim the mark "Ford".
If Knuth is right, it's safer to send cash than a check. Intercept cash, you only get that amount; intercept a check, and you can drain my whole checking account.
And how well can we expect that to be enforced?
Right now, there are millions of in-car transmitters out there used for relaying satellite radio to car stereos. They cause all sorts of interference with "authorized radio communications". But since they were only interfering with NPR broadcasts, rather than those of someone with money, rather than take serious action against XM the FCC agreed to let them send out cheap useless ferrite beads and leave it up to customers to install them.
Too late. In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., SCOTUS held that, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark." They awarded trademark rights to "green-gold" to Qualitex.
But of course, the issues are very different. Even at the physical level - most matter is opaque to the visible spectrum but transparent to radio.
An optically scanned paper ballot is electronic voting.
Yes, that's the theory. The reality is this:
and this:
and...well, Google "ebay sensitive data" and see.
Fortunately, disk encryption mitigates what could be disasters:
It has limited access - until a larger drive needs to be installed, and the the old one ends up in the spare parts bin and eventually gets sold as surplus, and somebody gets it home and finds your medical records on it.
Or, the service is in a locked room with limited access - but the DVD-Rs with the backups get lost on the way to the off-site storage facility.
Confidential data has been exposed in the past via both of these sorts of scenarios. Yes, perfect physical control would prevent the need for them. But it's a poor sort of security plan that relies on one layer being perfect.
The same reasoning applies to why a lab doing non-sensitive work would be subject to the same controls: it's more reliable to say "X for every server" that to say "X for every server of which it's true that Y and Z". Because Y and Z might not be true on that server today, but will tomorrow. Hardware gets moved around, servers get consolidated.
He didn't say, "I want information to be free." He said, "Information wants to be free."
It's exactly because information "wants" to be free that posting personal information here is a bad idea. It wouldn't stay here. It would spread.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you feel free to come into a forum full of software professionals and make sweeping statements.
Yeah. Good luck with that career, young padawan.
Working on free software can also earn a paycheck. Big projects have funding.
Also, the vast majority of software developers work on bespoke, in-house projects, not things meant to be turned into COTS products. People pull in a free software package to get a job done for their company, and contributing patches back is usually to their benefit.
For example, I wanted to do some automated testing. I found that WebInject did almost, but not quite, what I needed; I made the changes. All this was on the company's dime. With the boss's permission, I contributed the changes back; we benefit in that this new capability will be part of future releases, rather than requiring me to re-integrate.
We win, the community wins. And that's the day-to-day truth of free software: not people working for free in their basements, but skilled professionals sharing ideas to improve the craft of software.
But you can't be trusted for providing your own identification. An identification credential relies on some sort of certifying authority.
"Ok, Mr. Jones, I'll just need a piece of ID to cash this check."
"Fine, here you go."
"Um, what's this? A Polaroid (link for the kids) with your name written on it with a Sharpie? Is this something you made yourself?"
"Sure! Who's better to attest to my identify than me?"
Do you want my PC to answer the question of "Is this guy mpapet?" Might see some interesting posts under your name if it does. :-)