I did the same thing just the other day--I'd had a loaner laptop that I forgot to deauthorize before returning it. A quick note to Apple (using the form on this page), and they simply removed all of my authorized computers. A short time later, I had to reauthorize my laptop.
This led to a question, though...
There was a period of a few hours when iTunes said that I had 0 authorized computers, but my laptop was still able to play my purchased music (without me reauthorizing it). When I tried to play a song a few hours later, though, I got prompted with a message to authorize the computer.
Does the iTunes program periodically "phone home" to make sure that a computer is still authorized? My impression was that there was just some token that was stored on my computer once it was authorized. (If it had to phone home to check every time I wanted to play a song, then I wouldn't be able to play without a network connection, which isn't the case.)
However, since my computer "knew" that it was not authorized after a few hours, it must have checked with Apple at some point.
When I first realized this, I thought to myself "A-ha! Here's a way around the restrictions. I'll authorize a computer, get the token, and then block iTunes from connecting to the internet. Then, I'll get Apple to deauthorize my computers. Then, I can authorize three new computers. That means I can play my music on FOUR computers! I'll show them!"
Then I realized that the DRM that Apple uses is flexible enough for me. I can play my music on my mini, my laptop, my partner's iPod, his desktop, and his laptop. There really isn't much of a need for me to get around this DRM.
I voted on the touchscreens here in San Jose for the first time today.
It was a weird experience. I hit big yellow on-screen "button" at the end to cast my vote. The computer made a trilly beep and ejected the smart card. It was very uncomfortable not knowing whether my vote had been recorded correctly, though.
But then I thought back to my very first time voting, in 1996 in Brookline, MA. They had these big booths with little levers beneath every possible thing you could vote for (a little lever beneath each name, a little lever beneath "yes" and "no" for the initiatives). You'd pull the appropriate levers to indicate your vote. The thing is, I wasn't sure how to make sure that my ballot was cast. I surmised that just opening the ballot booth cast my vote--but I wasn't sure.
(There's a description of it under "Mechanical Lever Machines" at http://www.lwvnj.org/booth/machines.html. And, I now know for the first time that I surmised correctly.)
It turns out that those machines also lacked a paper trail. So for all of the times I've voted, I wonder how many times my votes actually counted.
At least with the computer, I'm SURE I cast it correctly. How do I know? Because the computer made a trilly beep to tell me. Somehow, that's more reassuring.
My vote may not actually be counted this time, but at least I KNOW it wasn't because of my screw up.:)
Doesn't most absentee voting (done with a paper ballot that is mailed to you) also take place at home? You could have the "voting party" with people that have their paper absentee ballots today.
Of course, to have the absentee ballot, you need to request one in advance of the election. If you were trying to unduly bend your friends to vote for your candidate/issue, you would have had to have pressured them a while before the election to register and request the absentee ballot, and then pressured them again to attend your voting party.
Only if you could register online on election day and then vote immediately would there be any difference with the current absentee voting. I doubt states would allow this to prevent the scenario that you present.
(Of course, a perhaps bigger concern would be paying people to attend your voting party--but only if they voted your way. Again, though, this could happen today with absentee ballots.)
I'm not sure if you are still in California, but if you are you can get a "security freeze" put on your credit report.
This is different from the "security alert" that most people tell you to put on your credit report when fraud happens.
With a "security alert," basically it's just a notification to creditors that they should be careful. They can still get your credit report. Apparently, many creditors ignore this warning so you are not guaranteed that someone else isn't applying for credit in your name.
With a "security freeze," no one can get your credit report (with a few exclusions such as the police with a court order). It's much much safer.
The credit report agency sends you a PIN that you use to temporarily or permanently remove the security freeze. For example, if you are applying for a mortgage in the next 15 days, you can remove the security freeze for 15 days, and it will be put back on once that period of time is up.
The credit report agencies do not want people to know about this option because if everyone takes advantage of it then their whole system fails.
Under California law, there is no charge for a security freeze on your credit reports IF you have ALREADY been the vicitim of fraud. (Someone used some of my checks and stole my credit card number before, so I qualify). If you have not ALREADY been a victim, you can pay some ridiculous amount to have it put on (on the order of $50/year).
I believe Texas may have a similar law (because my letter including the PIN from one of the agencies said "security freezes are only available in California and Texas" and that if I move out of CA then I have to notify them so that they can remove the security freeze).
For the last year, I played the credit report agencies' game. I PAID THEM $80/year to get access to MY OWN INFORMATION to make sure no one was using my credit fraudulently. When I renewed a couple of months ago, they changed their policy and limited the number of times a year you could view your credit report. So I dropped them, and was going to sign up with a competitor (still playing the game) when I found out about the security freeze.
For more info:
http://www.privacy.ca.gov/financial/cfreeze.htm
http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/legislation_ca li fornia_sb168.html
Of course, if you are not in California (or Texas I think), then you can try seeing if your representatives in DC will make this a national requirement.
Joey
Re:So why ever go to university?
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The current system restricts knowledge to those who can afford it
I wasn't very rich when I went to MIT at the end of the 90s--I lived in a trailer in rural North Carolina. The thought of paying $30k a year (now $40k a year) was just mind-boggling for me.
But then I waited to find out what the financial aid was, and they are "ridiculously" generous. They have grants and low interest loans for those who are not rich going in.
My fifth year (to get my Master's), I was able to work as a Research Assistant, getting my tuition paid AND a stipend to cover room and board plus a little bit of partying on the side. (And I was by no means the exception on this point; all of my friends had similar deals.)
Fortunately, partly because I went there, I got a good paying job afterward. Now, three years after graduation, I am close to paying off my loans.
So yes, it is expensive... but they are generous if you do not have the money.
(By the way, I feel particularly attached to OCW now... I received two letters asking me to give legal permission to MIT to use a couple of things I did in OCW (a small class project for a history class and an essay assignment I wrote for another class). It didn't even dawn on me that they would need my permission to use work that I did for classes there, since both of these things have been available on the web since I did them. Maybe they are just being nice.:))
I feel more comfortable having the card with me (it's a huge headache going to the emergency room without it and having to pay/submit the bills later--it happened to my partner).
What I have done instead is to cut out my social security number from the card. It hasn't phased any of the people I've given it to at hospitals or clinics, they just ask me to give them my social so they can write it on the photocopy of the card that they make.
In my experience, the cops don't act because the banks just absorb the cost of these crimes.
I've had two bad experiences; once a box of checks were stolen out of my mailbox and used fraudulently for about $300 total, and once my credit card number was stolen and used for about $300 also. Both times the bank refunded me the money, although I still had to go through various hassles to clear my name.
The first time there admittedly wasn't much to go on in finding who did it. The second time, the woman used the credit card to PAY HER UTILITY BILLS, so she tied her address to her fraudulent use of the card! I called the companies and got her address. The thief was someone in Provo, Utah.
When I called my local (San Jose, California) Police Department, they basically said there wasn't much they could do about it. And I believed them because they hadn't done anything about my stolen checks.
So I called the Provo, Utah police department. I figured they would care more about having a criminal in their city.
The policeman sounded genuinely concerned, but after a while he called me back and told me that since the bank had refunded my money, technically THEY were the victims. The prosecutors will only act if the victim wants them to, and the policeman said in most cases the banks won't act. It's just cheaper for them to absorb the cost.
So, basically this identity theft issue is a big problem, but the people who are doing it know that as long as they don't spend too much then they will never get prosecuted. I'm guessing the woman who used my credit card to pay her bills knew this--I can't imagine a criminal would be so stupid to do this unless they knew there would be no consequences.
And, by the way, I consider myself to be relatively anal about shredding personal documents, not using my credit card at web sites that I do not know anything about, et cetera.
(And after the stolen checks, I got a locking mailbox, though it physically hurt me to do this--to basically send out a signal of distrust in my front yard.)
Yet my credit card number was still stolen. My gut feeling? I think it was probably a waiter at one of the restaurants I have been to. There's not much I can do about that other than carrying around large amounts of cash.
The problem with this quote is that it refers to the sales force.
As a developer in the server technologies division of Oracle, I'd have to say that I don't see the "intense competition" that is mentioned. Within my group of about 50-100 (that is, all of the people below the closest VP), there is a true spirit of cooperation. If I have a problem with a specific line of code or a new technology I am learning, there are many other people on the team who are willing to help (just as I am willing to help them), even if they are not working on the same project as me. I know it sounds idealistic, but that's what the real situation is in development.
This cooperation even extends to the H-1Bs, and all of the other recent immigrants with whom I work. I'm one of the few people in my group that was born in America and speaks English natively. However, I look at having this diversity in the group as a positive and not a negative as it brings different viewpoints to technical discussions and makes non-technical discussions a little more interesting.
Now, sometimes there is a level of competition between teams, as each team thinks it knows the best approach to a given problem. But that is healthy, and it forces a detailed refinement of the approaches so that the "higher ups" can make a decision regarding which approach is most appropriate.
So, I can't speak for the sales force, but I don't know if the development cultures are as different as the quote suggests.
I don't understand why they are complaining about the costs of this--they are just passing it on to their customers anyway. And, perhaps most annoyingly, they don't pass it on to the consumers in the price of the calling plans, they tack it on as a "surcharge" (the government lets them do this). Imagine going to Wal-Mart, and when you pay for your purchase you are not only charged tax, but you are charged an explicit surcharge for the various fees arising from government mandates that they had to incur.
From the article:
"Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said he opposes another delay because wireless companies already collect customer surcharges for both the number portability and 911 efforts."
All of their arguments seem very disingenuous.
It seems to me that they are afraid that when a customer calls in with a problem, they might actually have to fix now that it will be less painful for the customer to switch.
I do not understand why term limits are a good thing. Why shouldn't people have the right to vote for who they want? Are term limit supporters suggesting that we should not trust the majority of voters, because they are easily duped by these web sites, tv ads, etc.? If that is the case, perhaps we shouldn't let voters vote at all--we simply can't trust them.
Here in California, we experienced one of the biggest problems with term limits with our recent energy crisis. When everything came to a head, there were two big issues--first, everyone that had voted for the ridiculous deregulation system that was put in place had been termed out of office; there was no one to be held accountable. Second, no one had the experience keeping a government functioning during a crisis--they all looked like deer in the headlights.
In what other job do we say after only a few years "oh, you've gained experience? Well, time to go, even if you're doing a really good job and everyone likes you."
The argument that legislators were "supposed" to be part-time workers doesn't sway me either. There are so many complex issues that our government has to deal with that no one would have a chance to learn them well. That's exactly what has happened in California--in fact, the power of lobbyists has increased here. No one terms out the lobbyists, so they have a lot more experience than the legislators they are dealing with. Since the legislators have so little time to get really experienced on any issue, it is a lot easier for the lobbyists to convince them to see their side of the issues.
The San Jose Mercury News had an article about term limits in California a little while ago:
I've thought about this problem before for the most common secure activity I do online--purchasing something with my credit card. I was worried that someone could decrypt my credit card number and expiration date and "security code" when technology improves.
Then I realized that the credit card numbers expire in a relatively short period of time (all of the credit cards in my wallet expire within two years).
Assuming the technology to decrypt this information doesn't come out within two years, I'm safe with these cards. Of course, I suppose this means that when the security is breakable (quantum computer or whatever) I should immediately cancel all of my credit cards that are active at the time, and refrain from using any new cards I get.
However, this concern will make me think hard about whether to do other types of secure transactions... For example, I've been thinking it would be convenient if my insurance company could let me see my claims history online. However, this is information that I can't just "cancel" when someone in the future is able to decrypt it. Another example are the sites that require the use of social security numbers--again, you can't just cancel that information.
One of the benefits of moving to touch screen technology is that it will make Instant Runoff Voting (or Condorcet, or any type of ranked voting system) much easier and, potentially less confusing.
In these systems, the voter ranks his/her choices (i.e. "I want this candidate to win, but if he/she doesn't get enough support, I'd then prefer this candidate" and so on).
The current paper technology to implement this is generally either a box where the voter writes the rank number next to a candidate's name, or a bubblesheet where the voter fills in "1" next to his/her first choice, "2" next to the second choice and so on.
Although ranked voting systems are superior to our current system, these paper ballots are much more confusing than the simple "draw the arrow" or "fill in one bubble" or "punch out one chad."
This is where the computerized systems shine, though. One could imagine a ranked voting system that looks like this: There is a list of candidates on one side of the screen. You touch the names in the order I want to rank them, and your ranked list appears on the other side of the screen. If you make a mistake, the machine can either allow you to change the list in place, or can allow you to "reset" the vote and start the ranking process over (the latter approach being potentially less confusing). Before moving on to the next vote, you can clearly see your ranked choices for the current vote.
Now, the problem is, many of the machines that are being purchased today don't have this implemented, so they will be obsolete once the voters in this country realize how much better the ranked system of voting is. However, computers still have the advantage that they CAN be much less confusing for ranked voting systems than paper ballots.
What's funny about Claire is that if you say "Let me speak to a customer representative," she tries to trick you into not getting to one. She says "OK, but let me determine where to direct your call." When you give her more information, she kindly suggests that you keep talking to her about that topic instead.
The funniest part, though, is that if you insist on still talking to someone, she sounds so sad about it before she connects you.
(Though, at least they give you the OPTION of speaking to someone--at some places they've gotten smart about pressing 0 or * or # to speak to someone; now they'll just say it is an unrecognized command and disconnect you after a few attempts.)
Of course, the problem with Sprint PCS is that even when I get to a real person, they almost never fix my problem or they make my problem worse.
When I first went shopping for a mobile phone back in 1999, this was actually one of my biggest concerns--that I had to pay if a telemarketer called me. So I looked around, and most of Sprint PCS' plans included a "first incoming minute free" feature; if a telemarketer called, you had a minute to hang up without being charged.
Of course, as Sprint seems to do so often with any redeeming quality, they got rid of this feature from new plans; you could only keep getting the first minute free if you never changed plans. Unfortunately for me, I realized too late that I had signed up for a larger plan than I needed, so when I cut down my minutes, I no longer had the first incoming minute free.
(They used a similar technique with Night and Weekend minutes. These used to start at 7pm, then 8pm, now 9pm. As long as you don't ever change anything about your plan, you are fine; if you decide to sign up for their cheaper new plans, you get screwed.)
Since they don't warn you that your service will become more limited if you switch plans, this catches most people by surprise. (Unfortunately, that's how I found out about losing my first incoming minute free.)
The book discusses how libraries are "archiving" old newspapers and books using microfilm and, now, digital techniques. The problem is, in most cases, they are throwing away the originals which have some nice properties (they are more tactile, look better, etc.) because they got so excited about the new technology and were happy they didn't have to set aside space for the old materials. Of course, it turns out that most of the microfilm is deteriorating now, and the original digital versions are low resolution and on obsolete platforms.
While the book deals with archiving our collective paper-based history, some of the lessons in there are relevant to archiving your own personal photographic history. The biggest lesson--don't make the mistake of throwing away the originals because you have this fancy new digital version!
Does anyone know at what stage of the checkin process this retinal scanning will actually be used? The story didn't mention that at all, and I couldn't find the press release on Northwest's site. I find it hard to believe they would allow you into the secure area without going through the machines, which would mean that this doesn't affect security at all.
I remember some time ago talk of using retinal scans for making it easier for people to get through customs, but that was to enter the country after they've already traveled.
I love this feature and use it all the time--if I have no luggage to check, I can get all the way to the gate without talking to anyone from the airline. At first, I was amazed they continued doing this after the attacks, but then I realized I still have to show ID when I'm about to board anyway--it's no less secure than if I had checked-in the traditional way and shown my ID when getting my boarding pass.
(The best part of this process I don't want many people to realize, but I'll share it with the rest of slashdot... since you are actually checking in, you can grab seats that are held until checkin time; if you do this as early as possible--30 hours in advance--you almost always get first choice of seats that are at the very front of coach.)
Re:Change in the infastructure
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are no plans to change the $1 bill, nor the $5 and $10 as of now. The only vending machines that would be affected would be those that take $20, of which there are relatively few...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two groups that will likely be affected--high-priced subways (like SF BART and DC Metro) and casinos (with all of their slot machines).
Since these groups just upgraded their machines to the latest technology for the last bill change, hopefully the bill readers will require only a software upgrade to recognize the new bills.
Slashdot Mirror
I did the same thing just the other day--I'd had a loaner laptop that I forgot to deauthorize before returning it. A quick note to Apple (using the form on this page), and they simply removed all of my authorized computers. A short time later, I had to reauthorize my laptop.
This led to a question, though...
There was a period of a few hours when iTunes said that I had 0 authorized computers, but my laptop was still able to play my purchased music (without me reauthorizing it). When I tried to play a song a few hours later, though, I got prompted with a message to authorize the computer.
Does the iTunes program periodically "phone home" to make sure that a computer is still authorized? My impression was that there was just some token that was stored on my computer once it was authorized. (If it had to phone home to check every time I wanted to play a song, then I wouldn't be able to play without a network connection, which isn't the case.)
However, since my computer "knew" that it was not authorized after a few hours, it must have checked with Apple at some point.
When I first realized this, I thought to myself "A-ha! Here's a way around the restrictions. I'll authorize a computer, get the token, and then block iTunes from connecting to the internet. Then, I'll get Apple to deauthorize my computers. Then, I can authorize three new computers. That means I can play my music on FOUR computers! I'll show them!"
Then I realized that the DRM that Apple uses is flexible enough for me. I can play my music on my mini, my laptop, my partner's iPod, his desktop, and his laptop. There really isn't much of a need for me to get around this DRM.
I voted on the touchscreens here in San Jose for the first time today.
It was a weird experience. I hit big yellow on-screen "button" at the end to cast my vote. The computer made a trilly beep and ejected the smart card. It was very uncomfortable not knowing whether my vote had been recorded correctly, though.
But then I thought back to my very first time voting, in 1996 in Brookline, MA. They had these big booths with little levers beneath every possible thing you could vote for (a little lever beneath each name, a little lever beneath "yes" and "no" for the initiatives). You'd pull the appropriate levers to indicate your vote. The thing is, I wasn't sure how to make sure that my ballot was cast. I surmised that just opening the ballot booth cast my vote--but I wasn't sure.
(There's a description of it under "Mechanical Lever Machines" at http://www.lwvnj.org/booth/machines.html. And, I now know for the first time that I surmised correctly.)
It turns out that those machines also lacked a paper trail. So for all of the times I've voted, I wonder how many times my votes actually counted.
At least with the computer, I'm SURE I cast it correctly. How do I know? Because the computer made a trilly beep to tell me. Somehow, that's more reassuring.
My vote may not actually be counted this time, but at least I KNOW it wasn't because of my screw up.Doesn't most absentee voting (done with a paper ballot that is mailed to you) also take place at home? You could have the "voting party" with people that have their paper absentee ballots today.
Of course, to have the absentee ballot, you need to request one in advance of the election. If you were trying to unduly bend your friends to vote for your candidate/issue, you would have had to have pressured them a while before the election to register and request the absentee ballot, and then pressured them again to attend your voting party.
Only if you could register online on election day and then vote immediately would there be any difference with the current absentee voting. I doubt states would allow this to prevent the scenario that you present.
(Of course, a perhaps bigger concern would be paying people to attend your voting party--but only if they voted your way. Again, though, this could happen today with absentee ballots.)
Joey
I'm not sure if you are still in California, but if you are you can get a "security freeze" put on your credit report.
a li fornia_sb168.html
This is different from the "security alert" that most people tell you to put on your credit report when fraud happens.
With a "security alert," basically it's just a notification to creditors that they should be careful. They can still get your credit report. Apparently, many creditors ignore this warning so you are not guaranteed that someone else isn't applying for credit in your name.
With a "security freeze," no one can get your credit report (with a few exclusions such as the police with a court order). It's much much safer.
The credit report agency sends you a PIN that you use to temporarily or permanently remove the security freeze. For example, if you are applying for a mortgage in the next 15 days, you can remove the security freeze for 15 days, and it will be put back on once that period of time is up.
The credit report agencies do not want people to know about this option because if everyone takes advantage of it then their whole system fails.
Under California law, there is no charge for a security freeze on your credit reports IF you have ALREADY been the vicitim of fraud. (Someone used some of my checks and stole my credit card number before, so I qualify). If you have not ALREADY been a victim, you can pay some ridiculous amount to have it put on (on the order of $50/year).
I believe Texas may have a similar law (because my letter including the PIN from one of the agencies said "security freezes are only available in California and Texas" and that if I move out of CA then I have to notify them so that they can remove the security freeze).
For the last year, I played the credit report agencies' game. I PAID THEM $80/year to get access to MY OWN INFORMATION to make sure no one was using my credit fraudulently. When I renewed a couple of months ago, they changed their policy and limited the number of times a year you could view your credit report. So I dropped them, and was going to sign up with a competitor (still playing the game) when I found out about the security freeze.
For more info:
http://www.privacy.ca.gov/financial/cfreeze.htm
http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/legislation_c
Of course, if you are not in California (or Texas I think), then you can try seeing if your representatives in DC will make this a national requirement.
Joey
The current system restricts knowledge to those who can afford it
I wasn't very rich when I went to MIT at the end of the 90s--I lived in a trailer in rural North Carolina. The thought of paying $30k a year (now $40k a year) was just mind-boggling for me.
But then I waited to find out what the financial aid was, and they are "ridiculously" generous. They have grants and low interest loans for those who are not rich going in.
My fifth year (to get my Master's), I was able to work as a Research Assistant, getting my tuition paid AND a stipend to cover room and board plus a little bit of partying on the side. (And I was by no means the exception on this point; all of my friends had similar deals.)
Fortunately, partly because I went there, I got a good paying job afterward. Now, three years after graduation, I am close to paying off my loans.
So yes, it is expensive... but they are generous if you do not have the money.
(By the way, I feel particularly attached to OCW now... I received two letters asking me to give legal permission to MIT to use a couple of things I did in OCW (a small class project for a history class and an essay assignment I wrote for another class). It didn't even dawn on me that they would need my permission to use work that I did for classes there, since both of these things have been available on the web since I did them. Maybe they are just being nice. :))
I feel more comfortable having the card with me (it's a huge headache going to the emergency room without it and having to pay/submit the bills later--it happened to my partner).
What I have done instead is to cut out my social security number from the card. It hasn't phased any of the people I've given it to at hospitals or clinics, they just ask me to give them my social so they can write it on the photocopy of the card that they make.
In my experience, the cops don't act because the banks just absorb the cost of these crimes.
I've had two bad experiences; once a box of checks were stolen out of my mailbox and used fraudulently for about $300 total, and once my credit card number was stolen and used for about $300 also. Both times the bank refunded me the money, although I still had to go through various hassles to clear my name.
The first time there admittedly wasn't much to go on in finding who did it. The second time, the woman used the credit card to PAY HER UTILITY BILLS, so she tied her address to her fraudulent use of the card! I called the companies and got her address. The thief was someone in Provo, Utah.
When I called my local (San Jose, California) Police Department, they basically said there wasn't much they could do about it. And I believed them because they hadn't done anything about my stolen checks.
So I called the Provo, Utah police department. I figured they would care more about having a criminal in their city.
The policeman sounded genuinely concerned, but after a while he called me back and told me that since the bank had refunded my money, technically THEY were the victims. The prosecutors will only act if the victim wants them to, and the policeman said in most cases the banks won't act. It's just cheaper for them to absorb the cost.
So, basically this identity theft issue is a big problem, but the people who are doing it know that as long as they don't spend too much then they will never get prosecuted. I'm guessing the woman who used my credit card to pay her bills knew this--I can't imagine a criminal would be so stupid to do this unless they knew there would be no consequences.
And, by the way, I consider myself to be relatively anal about shredding personal documents, not using my credit card at web sites that I do not know anything about, et cetera.
(And after the stolen checks, I got a locking mailbox, though it physically hurt me to do this--to basically send out a signal of distrust in my front yard.)
Yet my credit card number was still stolen. My gut feeling? I think it was probably a waiter at one of the restaurants I have been to. There's not much I can do about that other than carrying around large amounts of cash.
The problem with this quote is that it refers to the sales force.
As a developer in the server technologies division of Oracle, I'd have to say that I don't see the "intense competition" that is mentioned. Within my group of about 50-100 (that is, all of the people below the closest VP), there is a true spirit of cooperation. If I have a problem with a specific line of code or a new technology I am learning, there are many other people on the team who are willing to help (just as I am willing to help them), even if they are not working on the same project as me. I know it sounds idealistic, but that's what the real situation is in development.
This cooperation even extends to the H-1Bs, and all of the other recent immigrants with whom I work. I'm one of the few people in my group that was born in America and speaks English natively. However, I look at having this diversity in the group as a positive and not a negative as it brings different viewpoints to technical discussions and makes non-technical discussions a little more interesting.
Now, sometimes there is a level of competition between teams, as each team thinks it knows the best approach to a given problem. But that is healthy, and it forces a detailed refinement of the approaches so that the "higher ups" can make a decision regarding which approach is most appropriate.
So, I can't speak for the sales force, but I don't know if the development cultures are as different as the quote suggests.
I don't understand why they are complaining about the costs of this--they are just passing it on to their customers anyway. And, perhaps most annoyingly, they don't pass it on to the consumers in the price of the calling plans, they tack it on as a "surcharge" (the government lets them do this). Imagine going to Wal-Mart, and when you pay for your purchase you are not only charged tax, but you are charged an explicit surcharge for the various fees arising from government mandates that they had to incur.
From the article:
"Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said he opposes another delay because wireless companies already collect customer surcharges for both the number portability and 911 efforts."
All of their arguments seem very disingenuous.
It seems to me that they are afraid that when a customer calls in with a problem, they might actually have to fix now that it will be less painful for the customer to switch.
I do not understand why term limits are a good thing. Why shouldn't people have the right to vote for who they want? Are term limit supporters suggesting that we should not trust the majority of voters, because they are easily duped by these web sites, tv ads, etc.? If that is the case, perhaps we shouldn't let voters vote at all--we simply can't trust them.
Here in California, we experienced one of the biggest problems with term limits with our recent energy crisis. When everything came to a head, there were two big issues--first, everyone that had voted for the ridiculous deregulation system that was put in place had been termed out of office; there was no one to be held accountable. Second, no one had the experience keeping a government functioning during a crisis--they all looked like deer in the headlights.
In what other job do we say after only a few years "oh, you've gained experience? Well, time to go, even if you're doing a really good job and everyone likes you."
The argument that legislators were "supposed" to be part-time workers doesn't sway me either. There are so many complex issues that our government has to deal with that no one would have a chance to learn them well. That's exactly what has happened in California--in fact, the power of lobbyists has increased here. No one terms out the lobbyists, so they have a lot more experience than the legislators they are dealing with. Since the legislators have so little time to get really experienced on any issue, it is a lot easier for the lobbyists to convince them to see their side of the issues.
The San Jose Mercury News had an article about term limits in California a little while ago:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politi cs/2770226.htm
It actually does provide pros and cons of term limits; I just don't find the pros too convincing.
I've thought about this problem before for the most common secure activity I do online--purchasing something with my credit card. I was worried that someone could decrypt my credit card number and expiration date and "security code" when technology improves.
Then I realized that the credit card numbers expire in a relatively short period of time (all of the credit cards in my wallet expire within two years).
Assuming the technology to decrypt this information doesn't come out within two years, I'm safe with these cards. Of course, I suppose this means that when the security is breakable (quantum computer or whatever) I should immediately cancel all of my credit cards that are active at the time, and refrain from using any new cards I get.
However, this concern will make me think hard about whether to do other types of secure transactions... For example, I've been thinking it would be convenient if my insurance company could let me see my claims history online. However, this is information that I can't just "cancel" when someone in the future is able to decrypt it. Another example are the sites that require the use of social security numbers--again, you can't just cancel that information.
One of the benefits of moving to touch screen technology is that it will make Instant Runoff Voting (or Condorcet, or any type of ranked voting system) much easier and, potentially less confusing.
In these systems, the voter ranks his/her choices (i.e. "I want this candidate to win, but if he/she doesn't get enough support, I'd then prefer this candidate" and so on).
The current paper technology to implement this is generally either a box where the voter writes the rank number next to a candidate's name, or a bubblesheet where the voter fills in "1" next to his/her first choice, "2" next to the second choice and so on.
Although ranked voting systems are superior to our current system, these paper ballots are much more confusing than the simple "draw the arrow" or "fill in one bubble" or "punch out one chad."
This is where the computerized systems shine, though. One could imagine a ranked voting system that looks like this: There is a list of candidates on one side of the screen. You touch the names in the order I want to rank them, and your ranked list appears on the other side of the screen. If you make a mistake, the machine can either allow you to change the list in place, or can allow you to "reset" the vote and start the ranking process over (the latter approach being potentially less confusing). Before moving on to the next vote, you can clearly see your ranked choices for the current vote.
Now, the problem is, many of the machines that are being purchased today don't have this implemented, so they will be obsolete once the voters in this country realize how much better the ranked system of voting is. However, computers still have the advantage that they CAN be much less confusing for ranked voting systems than paper ballots.
What's funny about Claire is that if you say "Let me speak to a customer representative," she tries to trick you into not getting to one. She says "OK, but let me determine where to direct your call." When you give her more information, she kindly suggests that you keep talking to her about that topic instead.
The funniest part, though, is that if you insist on still talking to someone, she sounds so sad about it before she connects you.
(Though, at least they give you the OPTION of speaking to someone--at some places they've gotten smart about pressing 0 or * or # to speak to someone; now they'll just say it is an unrecognized command and disconnect you after a few attempts.)
Of course, the problem with Sprint PCS is that even when I get to a real person, they almost never fix my problem or they make my problem worse.
When I first went shopping for a mobile phone back in 1999, this was actually one of my biggest concerns--that I had to pay if a telemarketer called me. So I looked around, and most of Sprint PCS' plans included a "first incoming minute free" feature; if a telemarketer called, you had a minute to hang up without being charged.
Of course, as Sprint seems to do so often with any redeeming quality, they got rid of this feature from new plans; you could only keep getting the first minute free if you never changed plans. Unfortunately for me, I realized too late that I had signed up for a larger plan than I needed, so when I cut down my minutes, I no longer had the first incoming minute free.
(They used a similar technique with Night and Weekend minutes. These used to start at 7pm, then 8pm, now 9pm. As long as you don't ever change anything about your plan, you are fine; if you decide to sign up for their cheaper new plans, you get screwed.)
Since they don't warn you that your service will become more limited if you switch plans, this catches most people by surprise. (Unfortunately, that's how I found out about losing my first incoming minute free.)
I just finished reading an interesting book that is somewhat related, called "Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper" ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375726217/ ).
The book discusses how libraries are "archiving" old newspapers and books using microfilm and, now, digital techniques. The problem is, in most cases, they are throwing away the originals which have some nice properties (they are more tactile, look better, etc.) because they got so excited about the new technology and were happy they didn't have to set aside space for the old materials. Of course, it turns out that most of the microfilm is deteriorating now, and the original digital versions are low resolution and on obsolete platforms.
While the book deals with archiving our collective paper-based history, some of the lessons in there are relevant to archiving your own personal photographic history. The biggest lesson--don't make the mistake of throwing away the originals because you have this fancy new digital version!
Does anyone know at what stage of the checkin process this retinal scanning will actually be used? The story didn't mention that at all, and I couldn't find the press release on Northwest's site. I find it hard to believe they would allow you into the secure area without going through the machines, which would mean that this doesn't affect security at all.
I remember some time ago talk of using retinal scans for making it easier for people to get through customs, but that was to enter the country after they've already traveled.
As for Northwest's checkin and security, they're one of the only airlines (if not the only) to allow you to print your own boarding pass at home off the web. (https://webx25.nwa.com/cki-bin/cki.pro?loadactivI love this feature and use it all the time--if I have no luggage to check, I can get all the way to the gate without talking to anyone from the airline. At first, I was amazed they continued doing this after the attacks, but then I realized I still have to show ID when I'm about to board anyway--it's no less secure than if I had checked-in the traditional way and shown my ID when getting my boarding pass.
(The best part of this process I don't want many people to realize, but I'll share it with the rest of slashdot... since you are actually checking in, you can grab seats that are held until checkin time; if you do this as early as possible--30 hours in advance--you almost always get first choice of seats that are at the very front of coach.)
There are no plans to change the $1 bill, nor the $5 and $10 as of now. The only vending machines that would be affected would be those that take $20, of which there are relatively few...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two groups that will likely be affected--high-priced subways (like SF BART and DC Metro) and casinos (with all of their slot machines).
Since these groups just upgraded their machines to the latest technology for the last bill change, hopefully the bill readers will require only a software upgrade to recognize the new bills.