And it is a weird right - after all, as the grandparent says, something you physically own is usually yours to do with as you please. That's what ownership means, and it's a rather more fundamental right than copyright.
If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs. Why should it be OK to make a copy of a CD for the car. Why should it be OK to make a copy of the music for your mp3 player or your laptop.
If it wasn't possible (or in the case of the vacuum cleaner, it was sufficiently difficult) you would make do with the single copy. Take it with you in the car, use it in a CD walkman or in your laptop. It is only because technology makes it so easy that we think we should be allowed to do it.
Perhaps we think it is "OK" because it can't be costing the artist (or corporation backing the artist) much money can it? What's one copy worth.
Don't get me wrong, I like having copies of my music available to me in various forms, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that we get a guarentee with out vacuum cleaners, so if they break within the guarentee period they will fix or replace it. So, Music companies, you can't have it both ways. Give us a reasonable term "guarentee" on the items we purchase to allow them to be replaced if they fail.
Everyone is mentioning solar and wind, but I've not seen any mention of heat pumps?
Bury a bunch of tubing under the ground and pump heat out of the ground into your house. This is apparently quite efficient, especially when there is a large difference between the air and ground temperature, ie in the winter.
Also, if you look at Bermuda where they don't have any ground source for fresh water you will notice that every house has a water tank under it and rainwater is directed into the tanks (it does rain quite a bit!). This water is used to flush the toilets, and can also be used to wash in, etc. I think some of the locals actually drink it too, though I think I'd at least like to boil it! There are, I believe, local regulations that mean you have to have your tank cleaned every 5 years or so, and your roof repainted every 2 or three.
See also the grey water treatment options.
See also these windmills and a man in South London has got planning permission to put one up!
I've been looking into these ideas myself for a while, but it would also be useful to try and use less electricity in total, rather than just trying to generate more for yourself.
I find this is exciting! Some of the best science starts with the words "Gee, that's funny..." Unfortunately, an awful lot of science ends with...
"So, what exactly did you do before the lab exploded?"
... well I was laughing so hard my testicles fell off. Does that help?
The power supply of your computer is DC! It is transformed generally down to 12VDC, 5VDC and 3VDC
I assumed that the OP was saying that the PC runs (internally) on DC, and it is transformed down to 12/5/3 V DC from the external AC supply.
That being the case, if you had a PC with the normal AC power lead, and 3 DC power connectors (or however many you need) you could plug in the DC direct from some external source, and hence not have the hot transformer in the PC box.
or something.
This doesn't sound unreasonable. The cost of the extra DC power connectors? You could even offer DC output at the voltages for charging stuff (although I suppose USB might have that covered!). So if you don't have an external DC source, use the old AC lead, otherwise, you can get a quality external AC->DC Converter and plug multiple PCs directly into the DC.
It might go the way of smoking! They used to have smoking areas on planes, which is so stupid as the smoke is going to spread! Talking and ringing phones will also tend to bleed into the next door areas, so should simply not be permitted at all. I find it hard to believe that people really can't do without their phone for a few hours!
I know it's off topic, but boy could the US have some awesome super-fast railways if it wanted! There was talk a while back about putting one in down in Florida somewhere. My recollection is that is was going to be a MagLev train too!
It's obviously not going to be a replacement for the speed of travelling coast to coast or similar long distances, but it could indeed make sense for shorter journeys. Think about the speed of travelling from the centre of London to the centre of Paris using the Chunnel link. This compares very favourably with the flying times.
OK, so not every box has DRM, and if a box does have it, not everything uses it.
But if we disagree with the concept of DRM, and allow our new boxes to contain the capability, even though it's not (always) used, won't there come a time when all boxes contain it, and the various companies decide to start only shipping content that can be played using the DRM features?
At the moment, if the companies started shipping DRM restricted content, no one would buy it as no one has the DRM capabilities in their players (computers/etc). That's a non-starter. So tell everyone it's OK, 'cos we're not going to use the features, and fool/cajole people into buying the DRM capabilities now, so they can be forced to use them later.
It's a bit like the UK ID Cards shenanigans. The Gov are saying they won't be compulsory and you won't have to carry one around all the time. Hmmm. What's the betting that once they have become part of the landscape, it will suddenly become compulsory to own one, and once that has been around for a while you will have to carry it with you.
But if it's not compulsory to have or carry one, where's the problem introducing the card?
Isn't it just sneaking it in by the back door?
I do understand that it will allow your Vista PC to actually see more stuff than an XP one can see, but it is still putting a lock on your PC that you don't have the key to! It matter's not a jot that it's unlikely to be used for a while. Think of someone putting imobilisers/GPS locators in all new cars. Of course, we won't _use_ them...
Some movie studios have said they won't use it at all. I'm hoping that ICT won't be used much or at all in the first generation of HD discs, just because it's a big pain for early adoptors.
Hmmm. So there's some quite invasive DRM technology being shoehorned into the new breed of MS OS, but it's OK, because they promised not to use it. Riiiiiight.
Does anyone else see the problem?
If we accept the DRM technology in hardware or software that we buy now ('cos they're not actually going to use it!), we are right-royally screwed once they decide to start using it, and we can't decide we don't want it 'cos we already have it wired into everything we own!
Seems like the slippery slope to me!
I expect the forehead slap and accompanying "DOH!" will echo around the world when they switch on Skynet^H^H^H^H^H the DRM capabilities!
But SMS messages are ridiculously expensive considering how little it costs for T-Mobile to send them
As I understand it, SMS's (AKA "text" messages) are actually free to send as far as the Telco's are concerned. They use spare bandwidth on the network, and whilst it must have cost "something" to setup the capability to utilise this spare bandwidth, now it is all setup, it's a cash-cow for the Telco's.
Also, because it only uses "spare" bandwidth, delivery within any specific timeframe is not guarenteed.
What I dislike most about text messages is that you feel obliged to reply when you get one! If someone want's to talk to you, they could simply call and we can chat!
Of course, certainly in the European Parliament, many people have two phones and artificially raise the No of texts sent by having to text themselves, so the right hand knows what the left hand is doing!
This worker was Dairy Queened for life? Hell, I build everything from coal ash if that is the result
I can guess what Queened might mean, but Dairy is a new one on me, unless it is somehow making the phrase going up the Dairy a bunch less wholesome than it used to be!
It's be interesting to see the prices these babies might reach if the current owners were to offer them for sale on eBay! Surely that would be the "open market" approach!
... but also groups related to Essex, Sussex and Middlesex...
These originally refering to the East Saxony and South Saxony areas are still going strong. The Middle Saxony area is hanging on by a thread, the West Saxony area is now all but defunct, and of course the North Saxony area was the first to go!
A friend of mine who is very knowledgable about Unix, had the following conversation:-
Recruiter: "We are looking for someone with knowledge of a specific Unix package"
Friend: "OK, what package are they looking for"
Recruiter: "Experience of Unix Guru"
Friend: "Riiiight."
Maybe recruiters are just screening for personality
Mostly, in my experience, the recruiters are actually screening out anyone who doesn't have an exact match for the list of skills the employer has asked for. The problem here is that where the employer says "exposure to such-and-such" would be useful, if you don't have that on your CV (resume) the recruiter won't pass it on to the employer!
Most companies have something odd in their list of such requirements, having one or two unusual/bespoke packages being used and it would obviously be useful if they hired someone who already knew about it, but most people who apply won't have even heard of the package! The employer then gets too few CVs through and there's the cry of "Skills Shortage" that opens the door to cheap imported labour.
I've never once in my life heard someone say "axe me a question."
... and from the OP...
if the purpose is to excape a spawn of satan software...
In the UK certain "ethnic groups" seem to have trouble pronouncing "ask" and "escape" and tend to pronounce them "axe" and "excape", and it would seem to be entering the young people's vernacular as a "cool way to talk", along with missing the "g" from the ends of "...ing" words, for example saying "winin" instead of "wining".
Obviously, you'd need the projectile being fired to be a nice slippery shape for when it hits the air, like a needle or something.
Build the tunnel somewhere high, or at least have the open end somewhere high, so as to limit, as much as possible, the friction.
You'd need to keep as much of the tunnel a vacuum as possible, so you didn't need to keep pumping the sucker out, so the last (or "release") section which can be open to the atmosphere would need to be sealable from the rest.
If you let the projectile pass into the "release" section (which is still sealed), then let the air in behind the projectile, would that speed it up still more? The far/final end of the "release" section could then be opened just as (OK "just before"!) the projectile arrived.
Aim this sucker at a catcher on a Space Station and fire a small projectile up every few minutes (or however long it takes to restore the "release" section to the vacuum state) containing raw materials (oxygen, water, etc), but I think we might need a more comfortable route for breakables, like people!
A card that's ten times as expensive to fake will cause fewer people with fake cards - everything has a demand curve with price.
I'm not sure it will necessarily be more expensive to buy a "difficult-to-make" fake than an easy fake. The same people who create fakes of other items (driving licences, passports, etc) will make fakes of ID cards, and I'd suggest that there is a 'price' for such fakes. Once you have the technology to create such a fake, creating the fakes wouldn't be that expensive, it's not like they will be hand made. On top of this, one of the dangers is that it would be possible to bribe the people who create the real ID cards into giving you a bogus one, and the price for that wouldn't necessarily rise (see previous link to DVLA info incident in previous reply).
The danger of creating the illuions that the cards can't be faked, when they've only been made slightly more dificult to fake, is real.
If people who are going to be checking these ID cards don't trust them, surely they are worthless, or at least no more useful than the current setup of having to provide two bills and your passport or driving licence?
We so seldom have to prove our identity that the extra burden of taking a few documents once in a blue moon is far better than the spectre of having to always prove who you are for everything, and let's not kid ourselves that once we are forced to carry the ID Cards (and that is the obvious next step), they will be checked at every opportunity, with large fines or prison time if you forgot it!
But are people really stupid enough to believe that an ID card is beyond doubt just because the government says it is?
Well, obviously I'm biased, but "the people" believe we need ID cards just because the Gov says we need them!
I just don't see the need or the benefit, let alone the massive cost and any of the worrying aspects of big-brotherism that I have tried to keep our discussion away from (I left my tin-foil hat at home today!).
No competent engineer in any field waits for a perfect solution
Hmmmm. Given that I agree that it is nigh on impossible to create a "perfect solution", certainly for any reasonably complex system, I suppose I may have to concede that point, but I think it is also true that if a solution isn't "good enough" (where "good enough" can obviously range from one end of the scale to the other, depending on the system - ie the system has to be pretty darn good for a nuclear power station, but not perhaps so rigourous for HMV's stock system), then the compentent engineer tends not to implement a computer system, when (suitably trained) humans can do the job better.
Only a small minority of people will want fake ID cards, and these are the very people who we are trying to catch out by introducing the ID card in the first place. If they can be faked, they WILL be faked. It is also my contention that fakes will be easy to obtain, much like guns are "easy" to obtain now, if you are in the criminal "underworld".
If people have complete trust in the ID Cards, and there are reasonable fakes about, the system becomes useless. Actually, it makes the system worse, because now anyone with a reasonable fake won't be questioned further, as they have an ID Card.
If people don't have complete trust in the ID Cards, we are no better off.
To me, it just seems a waste of money at best, and outright dangerous at worst!
I'm a great believer in the fact that there is no smoke without fire, so it doesn't surprise me that some of the protesters were hot-heads. These sorts of protests (actually, maybe all protests!) will always attract those sorts of people.
Certainly, much of the coverage I saw seemed to show the Police side of the conflict, but there's bound to have been some violence coming the other way. Of course, much like during the miner's strikes, you can't discount the possibilities of the Police trying to wind up the protesters so they can give them a bashing!
But regardless of who started the problems (and I'd like to believe it wasn't the Police!), I still take exception to the suggestion that it is OK for Pro-Hunt people to be beaten up, whilst re-iterating that I don't actually agree with hunting!
Saddest thing of all in my mind is that it would appear that hunting has a new-found vigour as many people want to partake just to thumb their noses at the Government. If they'd left well alone, it probably would have died out of natural causes in a generation or two anyway!
An ID that requires 1000 pounds and a corrupt government employee to fake is still better than one that requires 10 pounds and photoshop to fake.
If the ID card is assumed to be 100% safe, but someone can obtain one for £1000, then for a grand I can become you. I can clean out your bank account and sell your house. A grand doesn't seem like such a lot of money now.
No ID will be perfect, but is that an objection to making them better?
If it isn't "perfect", then the people who want fakes will get them. That's how criminals work. Setting up a costly "imperfect" ID Card system is NOT the way to improve the technology in this case. That scenario works well when brewing beer or making bread, but this is, IMHO, more akin Nuclear plant safety systems.
Half-Arsed just won't do!
Luckily, "Completely-Arsed" seems to be something our Tony is good at! (and that can be my "cheap shot", as I simply couldn't resist!)
Actually, I can't remember the last time I needed to prove my ID, other than for travel abroad, for which I have a Passport. With ID Cards, I will still need to use my Passport for travel.
a better (harder to fake, or harder to obtian on false pretenses) card is, well, better.
I'm not sure this is actually true, though I will go with it for now. If it is just "harder to fake" it is still fakeable. If it is fakeable, it is next to useless, as the people who want fakes will doubtless get them.
The more "trusted" the card is, the more damage can be done when someone works out how to fake one (or otherwise obtain a duplicate).
I suspect half of the resistance from US Slashdotters is just that: a better ID card means it will be harder to buy alchohol with a fake ID when underage.
A cheap shot that does you a dis-service, my friend.
Some people object that since any system for making IDs cards better wo't be a *perfect* system, we should never make them better. What kind of sense does that make? If it's harder for a criminal/terrorist/whatever to get a fake ID, that's a plus, it doesn't have to be a perfect system to be a better system.
OK, let's assume for a second that we can produce a perfect ID Card system. No leaks of information from the DB, impossible to fake, or coerce the employees to provide fakes, impossible for the Government to misuse the information, etc, etc.
OK, if you could 100% identify someone, it would stop (or at least seriously curtail) fraud
It wouldn't stop illegal immigrants, though it may make it harder for them to find work, and the work is likely to be even less palatable, and even less well paid!
It may remove ID based crimes, but it isn't going to stop crime, unless you insist on a valid ID card before being mugged, burgled, or raped.
It won't stop terrorism, as we know the Madrid train bombers, London tube bombers and the US 9/11 attrocities were carried out by people with legitimate "papers"
So I'll admit there would be some benefits to society, but what if we spent some of the billions this will cost everyone on, for example, extra Police on the beat. Would that help curtail more than just ID based crime, maybe deter terrorists and illegal immegrants too?
I just don't see the benefit for the cost, and I don't swallow the concept that if we don't try to setup a faultess ID-card system now (and presumably fail), we'll never be able to perfect the technology for our children in the future.
As I understand it, they were demonstrating in Parliament Square, which I understand to be illegal because of the danger of rioting.
Actually, demonstrating is legal if you get permission from the Police. The Gov (lord bless 'em) passed this outrageous law to try and get rid of Brian Haw who has been a thorn in their side since we started the war in Iraq. They blew it, unfortunately for them, and whilst any new protest is covered by the new law, Brian is OK, because his protest started before the law became, well, law!
Now, let's just talk about the other replies saying it's OK to beat up people who support hunting shall we. I don't agree with hunting, but I STILL don't think anyone should be hit with batons and riot shields just because they oppose the Gov. I have seen footage of the riots and it seemed pretty obvious that the Police were being a bit pushy.
If I turned up to protest about, let's say ID cards to bring it back on topic, and some Police person started pushing and shouting at me, I might feel inclined to push back (esp. as in the Hunt protest case, there were people being trampled!) in defence. Does this mean it's OK to beat me up too?
I can see there may have been an element of "tongue in cheek" accompanying those comments, but in the same way "humourous" comments about race or religion can offend, I find them wholly unacceptable, and who ever the Mods were who gave them "interesting" should also be ashamed.
Slashdot Mirror
If you buy a vacuum cleaner it is not considered "OK" to take it apart and build another one so you can have a vacuum cleaner for your holiday home, or one for upstairs and one for downstairs. Why should it be OK to make a copy of a CD for the car. Why should it be OK to make a copy of the music for your mp3 player or your laptop.
If it wasn't possible (or in the case of the vacuum cleaner, it was sufficiently difficult) you would make do with the single copy. Take it with you in the car, use it in a CD walkman or in your laptop. It is only because technology makes it so easy that we think we should be allowed to do it.
Perhaps we think it is "OK" because it can't be costing the artist (or corporation backing the artist) much money can it? What's one copy worth.
Don't get me wrong, I like having copies of my music available to me in various forms, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that we get a guarentee with out vacuum cleaners, so if they break within the guarentee period they will fix or replace it. So, Music companies, you can't have it both ways. Give us a reasonable term "guarentee" on the items we purchase to allow them to be replaced if they fail.
Bury a bunch of tubing under the ground and pump heat out of the ground into your house. This is apparently quite efficient, especially when there is a large difference between the air and ground temperature, ie in the winter.
Also, if you look at Bermuda where they don't have any ground source for fresh water you will notice that every house has a water tank under it and rainwater is directed into the tanks (it does rain quite a bit!). This water is used to flush the toilets, and can also be used to wash in, etc. I think some of the locals actually drink it too, though I think I'd at least like to boil it! There are, I believe, local regulations that mean you have to have your tank cleaned every 5 years or so, and your roof repainted every 2 or three.
See also the grey water treatment options.
See also these windmills and a man in South London has got planning permission to put one up!
I've been looking into these ideas myself for a while, but it would also be useful to try and use less electricity in total, rather than just trying to generate more for yourself.
Unfortunately, an awful lot of science ends with...
"So, what exactly did you do before the lab exploded?"
I assumed that the OP was saying that the PC runs (internally) on DC, and it is transformed down to 12/5/3 V DC from the external AC supply.
That being the case, if you had a PC with the normal AC power lead, and 3 DC power connectors (or however many you need) you could plug in the DC direct from some external source, and hence not have the hot transformer in the PC box.
or something.
This doesn't sound unreasonable. The cost of the extra DC power connectors? You could even offer DC output at the voltages for charging stuff (although I suppose USB might have that covered!). So if you don't have an external DC source, use the old AC lead, otherwise, you can get a quality external AC->DC Converter and plug multiple PCs directly into the DC.
maybe
No, but it does contain e
I know it's off topic, but boy could the US have some awesome super-fast railways if it wanted! There was talk a while back about putting one in down in Florida somewhere. My recollection is that is was going to be a MagLev train too!
It's obviously not going to be a replacement for the speed of travelling coast to coast or similar long distances, but it could indeed make sense for shorter journeys. Think about the speed of travelling from the centre of London to the centre of Paris using the Chunnel link. This compares very favourably with the flying times.
But if we disagree with the concept of DRM, and allow our new boxes to contain the capability, even though it's not (always) used, won't there come a time when all boxes contain it, and the various companies decide to start only shipping content that can be played using the DRM features?
At the moment, if the companies started shipping DRM restricted content, no one would buy it as no one has the DRM capabilities in their players (computers/etc). That's a non-starter. So tell everyone it's OK, 'cos we're not going to use the features, and fool/cajole people into buying the DRM capabilities now, so they can be forced to use them later.
It's a bit like the UK ID Cards shenanigans. The Gov are saying they won't be compulsory and you won't have to carry one around all the time. Hmmm. What's the betting that once they have become part of the landscape, it will suddenly become compulsory to own one, and once that has been around for a while you will have to carry it with you.
But if it's not compulsory to have or carry one, where's the problem introducing the card?
Isn't it just sneaking it in by the back door?
I do understand that it will allow your Vista PC to actually see more stuff than an XP one can see, but it is still putting a lock on your PC that you don't have the key to! It matter's not a jot that it's unlikely to be used for a while. Think of someone putting imobilisers/GPS locators in all new cars. Of course, we won't _use_ them ...
Hmmm. So there's some quite invasive DRM technology being shoehorned into the new breed of MS OS, but it's OK, because they promised not to use it. Riiiiiight.
Does anyone else see the problem?
If we accept the DRM technology in hardware or software that we buy now ('cos they're not actually going to use it!), we are right-royally screwed once they decide to start using it, and we can't decide we don't want it 'cos we already have it wired into everything we own!
Seems like the slippery slope to me!
I expect the forehead slap and accompanying "DOH!" will echo around the world when they switch on Skynet^H^H^H^H^H the DRM capabilities!
As I understand it, SMS's (AKA "text" messages) are actually free to send as far as the Telco's are concerned. They use spare bandwidth on the network, and whilst it must have cost "something" to setup the capability to utilise this spare bandwidth, now it is all setup, it's a cash-cow for the Telco's.
Also, because it only uses "spare" bandwidth, delivery within any specific timeframe is not guarenteed.
What I dislike most about text messages is that you feel obliged to reply when you get one! If someone want's to talk to you, they could simply call and we can chat!
Of course, certainly in the European Parliament, many people have two phones and artificially raise the No of texts sent by having to text themselves, so the right hand knows what the left hand is doing!
I can guess what Queened might mean, but Dairy is a new one on me, unless it is somehow making the phrase going up the Dairy a bunch less wholesome than it used to be!
My First Super Computer
... er ...
My First DNA Sequencing Kit
Profit?
These originally refering to the East Saxony and South Saxony areas are still going strong. The Middle Saxony area is hanging on by a thread, the West Saxony area is now all but defunct, and of course the North Saxony area was the first to go!
Recruiter: "We are looking for someone with knowledge of a specific Unix package"
Friend: "OK, what package are they looking for"
Recruiter: "Experience of Unix Guru"
Friend: "Riiiight."
Mostly, in my experience, the recruiters are actually screening out anyone who doesn't have an exact match for the list of skills the employer has asked for. The problem here is that where the employer says "exposure to such-and-such" would be useful, if you don't have that on your CV (resume) the recruiter won't pass it on to the employer!
Most companies have something odd in their list of such requirements, having one or two unusual/bespoke packages being used and it would obviously be useful if they hired someone who already knew about it, but most people who apply won't have even heard of the package! The employer then gets too few CVs through and there's the cry of "Skills Shortage" that opens the door to cheap imported labour.
if the purpose is to excape a spawn of satan software ...
In the UK certain "ethnic groups" seem to have trouble pronouncing "ask" and "escape" and tend to pronounce them "axe" and "excape", and it would seem to be entering the young people's vernacular as a "cool way to talk", along with missing the "g" from the ends of "...ing" words, for example saying "winin" instead of "wining".
Build the tunnel somewhere high, or at least have the open end somewhere high, so as to limit, as much as possible, the friction.
You'd need to keep as much of the tunnel a vacuum as possible, so you didn't need to keep pumping the sucker out, so the last (or "release") section which can be open to the atmosphere would need to be sealable from the rest.
If you let the projectile pass into the "release" section (which is still sealed), then let the air in behind the projectile, would that speed it up still more? The far/final end of the "release" section could then be opened just as (OK "just before"!) the projectile arrived.
Aim this sucker at a catcher on a Space Station and fire a small projectile up every few minutes (or however long it takes to restore the "release" section to the vacuum state) containing raw materials (oxygen, water, etc), but I think we might need a more comfortable route for breakables, like people!
I'm not sure it will necessarily be more expensive to buy a "difficult-to-make" fake than an easy fake. The same people who create fakes of other items (driving licences, passports, etc) will make fakes of ID cards, and I'd suggest that there is a 'price' for such fakes. Once you have the technology to create such a fake, creating the fakes wouldn't be that expensive, it's not like they will be hand made. On top of this, one of the dangers is that it would be possible to bribe the people who create the real ID cards into giving you a bogus one, and the price for that wouldn't necessarily rise (see previous link to DVLA info incident in previous reply).
The danger of creating the illuions that the cards can't be faked, when they've only been made slightly more dificult to fake, is real.
If people who are going to be checking these ID cards don't trust them, surely they are worthless, or at least no more useful than the current setup of having to provide two bills and your passport or driving licence?
We so seldom have to prove our identity that the extra burden of taking a few documents once in a blue moon is far better than the spectre of having to always prove who you are for everything, and let's not kid ourselves that once we are forced to carry the ID Cards (and that is the obvious next step), they will be checked at every opportunity, with large fines or prison time if you forgot it!
But are people really stupid enough to believe that an ID card is beyond doubt just because the government says it is?
Well, obviously I'm biased, but "the people" believe we need ID cards just because the Gov says we need them!
I just don't see the need or the benefit, let alone the massive cost and any of the worrying aspects of big-brotherism that I have tried to keep our discussion away from (I left my tin-foil hat at home today!).
Hmmmm. Given that I agree that it is nigh on impossible to create a "perfect solution", certainly for any reasonably complex system, I suppose I may have to concede that point, but I think it is also true that if a solution isn't "good enough" (where "good enough" can obviously range from one end of the scale to the other, depending on the system - ie the system has to be pretty darn good for a nuclear power station, but not perhaps so rigourous for HMV's stock system), then the compentent engineer tends not to implement a computer system, when (suitably trained) humans can do the job better.
Only a small minority of people will want fake ID cards, and these are the very people who we are trying to catch out by introducing the ID card in the first place. If they can be faked, they WILL be faked. It is also my contention that fakes will be easy to obtain, much like guns are "easy" to obtain now, if you are in the criminal "underworld".
If people have complete trust in the ID Cards, and there are reasonable fakes about, the system becomes useless. Actually, it makes the system worse, because now anyone with a reasonable fake won't be questioned further, as they have an ID Card.
If people don't have complete trust in the ID Cards, we are no better off.
To me, it just seems a waste of money at best, and outright dangerous at worst!
Certainly, much of the coverage I saw seemed to show the Police side of the conflict, but there's bound to have been some violence coming the other way. Of course, much like during the miner's strikes, you can't discount the possibilities of the Police trying to wind up the protesters so they can give them a bashing!
But regardless of who started the problems (and I'd like to believe it wasn't the Police!), I still take exception to the suggestion that it is OK for Pro-Hunt people to be beaten up, whilst re-iterating that I don't actually agree with hunting!
Saddest thing of all in my mind is that it would appear that hunting has a new-found vigour as many people want to partake just to thumb their noses at the Government. If they'd left well alone, it probably would have died out of natural causes in a generation or two anyway!
If the ID card is assumed to be 100% safe, but someone can obtain one for £1000, then for a grand I can become you. I can clean out your bank account and sell your house. A grand doesn't seem like such a lot of money now.
No ID will be perfect, but is that an objection to making them better?
If it isn't "perfect", then the people who want fakes will get them. That's how criminals work. Setting up a costly "imperfect" ID Card system is NOT the way to improve the technology in this case. That scenario works well when brewing beer or making bread, but this is, IMHO, more akin Nuclear plant safety systems.
Half-Arsed just won't do!
Luckily, "Completely-Arsed" seems to be something our Tony is good at! (and that can be my "cheap shot", as I simply couldn't resist!)
Just Say NO!
Actually, I can't remember the last time I needed to prove my ID, other than for travel abroad, for which I have a Passport. With ID Cards, I will still need to use my Passport for travel.
a better (harder to fake, or harder to obtian on false pretenses) card is, well, better.
I'm not sure this is actually true, though I will go with it for now. If it is just "harder to fake" it is still fakeable. If it is fakeable, it is next to useless, as the people who want fakes will doubtless get them.
The more "trusted" the card is, the more damage can be done when someone works out how to fake one (or otherwise obtain a duplicate).
I suspect half of the resistance from US Slashdotters is just that: a better ID card means it will be harder to buy alchohol with a fake ID when underage.
A cheap shot that does you a dis-service, my friend.
Some people object that since any system for making IDs cards better wo't be a *perfect* system, we should never make them better. What kind of sense does that make? If it's harder for a criminal/terrorist/whatever to get a fake ID, that's a plus, it doesn't have to be a perfect system to be a better system.
OK, let's assume for a second that we can produce a perfect ID Card system. No leaks of information from the DB, impossible to fake, or coerce the employees to provide fakes, impossible for the Government to misuse the information, etc, etc.
OK, if you could 100% identify someone, it would stop (or at least seriously curtail) fraud
It wouldn't stop illegal immigrants, though it may make it harder for them to find work, and the work is likely to be even less palatable, and even less well paid!
It may remove ID based crimes, but it isn't going to stop crime, unless you insist on a valid ID card before being mugged, burgled, or raped.
It won't stop terrorism, as we know the Madrid train bombers, London tube bombers and the US 9/11 attrocities were carried out by people with legitimate "papers"
So I'll admit there would be some benefits to society, but what if we spent some of the billions this will cost everyone on, for example, extra Police on the beat. Would that help curtail more than just ID based crime, maybe deter terrorists and illegal immegrants too?
I just don't see the benefit for the cost, and I don't swallow the concept that if we don't try to setup a faultess ID-card system now (and presumably fail), we'll never be able to perfect the technology for our children in the future.
Just Say NO!
Actually, demonstrating is legal if you get permission from the Police. The Gov (lord bless 'em) passed this outrageous law to try and get rid of Brian Haw who has been a thorn in their side since we started the war in Iraq. They blew it, unfortunately for them, and whilst any new protest is covered by the new law, Brian is OK, because his protest started before the law became, well, law!
Now, let's just talk about the other replies saying it's OK to beat up people who support hunting shall we. I don't agree with hunting, but I STILL don't think anyone should be hit with batons and riot shields just because they oppose the Gov. I have seen footage of the riots and it seemed pretty obvious that the Police were being a bit pushy.
If I turned up to protest about, let's say ID cards to bring it back on topic, and some Police person started pushing and shouting at me, I might feel inclined to push back (esp. as in the Hunt protest case, there were people being trampled!) in defence. Does this mean it's OK to beat me up too?
I can see there may have been an element of "tongue in cheek" accompanying those comments, but in the same way "humourous" comments about race or religion can offend, I find them wholly unacceptable, and who ever the Mods were who gave them "interesting" should also be ashamed.
Just Say NO!