Because there is nothing else. The credit reporting agencies need a number that uniquely identifies you, always has uniquely identified you and always will uniquely identify you. (Give or take the odd identify thief, that is.) If there's another number that accomplishes that and that almost everyone, certainly anyone who has a job and can apply for credit, has then I'm not aware of it.
Let me add a few more based on five years of martial arts teaching:
Go and watch a class - preferably a beginners class.
Tournaments/contests - Is this what they focus on? Tournaments have rules; fights don't. If they spend a lot of time focusing on winning tournaments I would look very closely at the overall quality of their martial arts training as a self-defense system.
How does the instructor make individual corrections? Does me make sure the student is performing the technique correctly after the correction? After I correct a student I stay with that student until they are doing the technique correctly and I make sure they know that they are doing it correctly. Providing negative feedback is an essential element of teaching but it should always be followed up with positive feedback.
How does the instructor manage the class? Is everyone where they're supposed to be and doing what they're supposed to be doing? How well does the instructor manage the class when the students aren't lined up performing individual drills? Many times during a class we will line students up and have them hit targets, for example, held by the instructor and his assistants. This is prime time for the (popular kids)/(smart asses)/(big mouths) to start on their routine when they're at the back of the line and the instructor is focused on the student in front of him. Does the instructor manage the end of the line as well as he does the front?
Your comment is just an example of the "Professional Athlete" argument. There are a very limited number of Michael Jordan's in the world. Similarly there are a very limited number of Alan Cox's. The odds of any given programmer gaining that level of notoriety are somehwere between slim and none.
once I have a program "out there" as it were, the program is going to be so improved vastly by people who have vastly more knowledge than me.
On the one hand I'm glad that you derive pleasure from seeing your work go out into the world and continue to grow and develop. On the other hand (assuming that you want to write code full time) that warm fuzzy feeling is going to be offset by the growling of your empty stomach.
We're not talking about "worth" in the sense of "intrinsic value" or even "applicability to a task". I don't think that even the author of the letter would argue that the OSI model doesn't accomplish those things. We're talking about "worth" as in "economic value to the producer".
By your logic, DUI should be legal unless you cause an accident.
You're absolutely right and I would support that position. The law should punish actions that cause people to become injured, not actions that might, hypothetically, cause someone to become injured.
By your logic, left turns should be illegal because people are more likely to get injrued making a turn across oncoming traffic.
[Devil's advocate]We have collectively (note that I didn't say individually) agreed that going too fast on certain roads is bad and, for the sake of public safety, people who exceed certain speeds should be punished. Since this is what the people have decided is best why would anyone object to better enabling the police to enforce the people's will?[/Devil's advocate]
Personally I think victimless crimes such as speeding are the heart of the problem. If it were up to me there would be no speed limits anywhere but the penalties for crimes such as vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence would be much for draconian.
It's ironic that the RIAA keeps doing what they're told to do by their critics. When they went after P2P companies like Napster they were told the networks had legitimate uses and they should be going after the users. After some legal wrangling they went after the users. When they went after the users they were accused of circumventing the system by forcing the ISP's to provide them with contact information without actually getting a judge-signed subpoena. After more legal wrangling they're going to court with "offending" IP addresses only so, presumably, a judge will issue a subpoena that gets them the users real-world identities.
I think the big difference is timing. If the state finds a problem with a type of slot machine then it doesn't go into service. The only person hurt is the machine's developer. If, on the other hand, there's a problem with a type of voting machine then what do you do? You can't just put off an election. The timing of those is usually mandated by law.
Actually that's not at all clear. You did read the article, right? It specifically mentions providing information to the IRS and mortgage brokers. The last time I filled out a mortgage application it required a complete personal financial statement. That's hardly the sort of information that's free to even government employees without judicial review.
It's true that if you're considered about information such as HIV status you could not enter it into the device. But if you start leaving out chunks of data then the device's usefullness is going to suffer.
I would love to have a small device like the Apple iPod in a small relational database to store virtually everything I would need for family and personal records, including health records.
Why am I not surprised that the chairman of the FCC wants to come up with a way for forms to be filled out quicker? Why am I not surprised that a senior government beauracrat wants to take all of my personal information and put it in one easy to subpoena location?
IANAA (I am not an accountant) but my father is - he spent over 30 years with the IRS. We were actually discussing this earlier this year and his summary was: "There's no such thing as a gift from an employer to an employee." Be careful with the gift cards. I suspect they would end up being taxable.
The should NOT, however, have the right to call my telephone. Turning the TV is basically acceptance of the existance of commercials.
More to the point: the creators of the commercials pay for the broadcast that I'm watching. When the telemarketers chip in for my phone bill then they can have a say in how my phone is used.
Isn't there an old military saying that goes: "Never interrupt your opponent while he's making a mistake." I think this is the situation in which we find ourselves.
In a financial services environment this is definitely not petty. If I remember a previous discussion corretly they are required by law to log all IM activity - not an easy proposition. Failure to do so will get them an unpleasant visit form the SEC.
Just because Microsoft says it's so doesn't mean that it's untrue.
This is true but I did find their second point to be overstated. True searching for apple returns scores of Apple computer links but this is where a little skill/creativity enters the picture. If you search for 'apple fruit' you get a full page of links related to "apples that grow on trees".
The existing copyright laws are reasonable. This, however, is a little over the top. In my opinion, copyright holders already have plenty of civil protection. Trying to criminalize this sort of activity is a thinly veiled attempt to shift the cost of protecting a copyright from the copyright holder to the taxpayers.
Slashdot Mirror
So you want to discriminate against wealthier people by making their fines higher than someone less wealthy who committed the same act?
Why not? We do it all the time. That's how income tax works, right?
Because there is nothing else. The credit reporting agencies need a number that uniquely identifies you, always has uniquely identified you and always will uniquely identify you. (Give or take the odd identify thief, that is.) If there's another number that accomplishes that and that almost everyone, certainly anyone who has a job and can apply for credit, has then I'm not aware of it.
It seems like as often as not I don't know where I want to go so I start with Google.
Let me add a few more based on five years of martial arts teaching:
Your comment is just an example of the "Professional Athlete" argument. There are a very limited number of Michael Jordan's in the world. Similarly there are a very limited number of Alan Cox's. The odds of any given programmer gaining that level of notoriety are somehwere between slim and none.
once I have a program "out there" as it were, the program is going to be so improved vastly by people who have vastly more knowledge than me.
On the one hand I'm glad that you derive pleasure from seeing your work go out into the world and continue to grow and develop. On the other hand (assuming that you want to write code full time) that warm fuzzy feeling is going to be offset by the growling of your empty stomach.
We're not talking about "worth" in the sense of "intrinsic value" or even "applicability to a task". I don't think that even the author of the letter would argue that the OSI model doesn't accomplish those things. We're talking about "worth" as in "economic value to the producer".
You're misinterpreting the word "worth". From the context the author didn't mean worth in the sense of self-worth but worth in an economic sense.
By your logic, DUI should be legal unless you cause an accident.
You're absolutely right and I would support that position. The law should punish actions that cause people to become injured, not actions that might, hypothetically, cause someone to become injured.
By your logic, left turns should be illegal because people are more likely to get injrued making a turn across oncoming traffic.
[Devil's advocate]We have collectively (note that I didn't say individually) agreed that going too fast on certain roads is bad and, for the sake of public safety, people who exceed certain speeds should be punished. Since this is what the people have decided is best why would anyone object to better enabling the police to enforce the people's will?[/Devil's advocate]
Personally I think victimless crimes such as speeding are the heart of the problem. If it were up to me there would be no speed limits anywhere but the penalties for crimes such as vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence would be much for draconian.
It's ironic that the RIAA keeps doing what they're told to do by their critics. When they went after P2P companies like Napster they were told the networks had legitimate uses and they should be going after the users. After some legal wrangling they went after the users. When they went after the users they were accused of circumventing the system by forcing the ISP's to provide them with contact information without actually getting a judge-signed subpoena. After more legal wrangling they're going to court with "offending" IP addresses only so, presumably, a judge will issue a subpoena that gets them the users real-world identities.
I think the big difference is timing. If the state finds a problem with a type of slot machine then it doesn't go into service. The only person hurt is the machine's developer. If, on the other hand, there's a problem with a type of voting machine then what do you do? You can't just put off an election. The timing of those is usually mandated by law.
Actually that's not at all clear. You did read the article, right? It specifically mentions providing information to the IRS and mortgage brokers. The last time I filled out a mortgage application it required a complete personal financial statement. That's hardly the sort of information that's free to even government employees without judicial review.
It's true that if you're considered about information such as HIV status you could not enter it into the device. But if you start leaving out chunks of data then the device's usefullness is going to suffer.
The Patriot Act, the Patriot Act II, national id cards, CAPPS, TIA, DMCA subpoenas
You think I don't have grounds for at least being defensive?
I would love to have a small device like the Apple iPod in a small relational database to store virtually everything I would need for family and personal records, including health records.
Why am I not surprised that the chairman of the FCC wants to come up with a way for forms to be filled out quicker? Why am I not surprised that a senior government beauracrat wants to take all of my personal information and put it in one easy to subpoena location?
IANAA (I am not an accountant) but my father is - he spent over 30 years with the IRS. We were actually discussing this earlier this year and his summary was: "There's no such thing as a gift from an employer to an employee." Be careful with the gift cards. I suspect they would end up being taxable.
The should NOT, however, have the right to call my telephone. Turning the TV is basically acceptance of the existance of commercials.
More to the point: the creators of the commercials pay for the broadcast that I'm watching. When the telemarketers chip in for my phone bill then they can have a say in how my phone is used.
If what you're opponent is doing, on the whole, hurts you more than him then I'd say he wasn't making a mistake.
Isn't there an old military saying that goes: "Never interrupt your opponent while he's making a mistake." I think this is the situation in which we find ourselves.
As a publisher? Exactly the opposite.
In a financial services environment this is definitely not petty. If I remember a previous discussion corretly they are required by law to log all IM activity - not an easy proposition. Failure to do so will get them an unpleasant visit form the SEC.
a coprorate right to vote
They already can and do - with their dollars. (No I don't mean in an economic sense.)
Just because Microsoft says it's so doesn't mean that it's untrue.
This is true but I did find their second point to be overstated. True searching for apple returns scores of Apple computer links but this is where a little skill/creativity enters the picture. If you search for 'apple fruit' you get a full page of links related to "apples that grow on trees".
It doesn't matter whether or not the voters remember. If they somehow forget the incumbent's opponents will be more than happy to remind them.
The existing copyright laws are reasonable. This, however, is a little over the top. In my opinion, copyright holders already have plenty of civil protection. Trying to criminalize this sort of activity is a thinly veiled attempt to shift the cost of protecting a copyright from the copyright holder to the taxpayers.