Just about everyone in the US has at least two government issued IDs: A driver's license (state issued) and a social security card (federally issued). Social security cards do not have a photo. For those that do not have a driver's license, a passport is also acceptable (as someone already mentioned) as photo ID.
There are two reasons why no rational person likes the Real ID Act. First, a minor point, is that we already have the above ID options and they work just fine. Second, and more important, there is currently no massive federally-controlled database containing ALL of the information in one spot. Given the government's track record of ineptitude and maleficence - especially in the past eight years - the last thing a sane person wants is to put all of the nation's personal information into the exclusive hands of a single government entity.
In short, it's both redundant and dangerous for our liberty. Of course all the chicken-littles will cry that we need it for security but even they know deep inside that's a load of shit. =Smidge=
That is actually a very interesting point. I mean, if your power bill suddenly shot up by a factor of 3 or 4 you'd probably raise hell about what the cause was, right? Probably wouldn't take long to find that someone has an extension cord plugged into your long forgotten porch outlet.
In fact, that's probably something ISPs can offer RIGHT NOW without a new pricing scheme: Include, as part of the bill statement, a record of monthly bandwidth usage for the past year. I'll bet they probably keep such records already... Just take a look at your bandwidth usage and most people can probably guess something's up. =Smidge=
I think you missed the point of what he was trying to say.
If 5% of subscribers use 50% of the network's bandwidth, then those 5% should be pay 50% of the costs.
The other 95% who, by comparison, use very little should also be charged proportionally less. To use completely arbitrary numbers:
If the network of 100 users goes through 1TB of bandwidth a month in total at a cost of $1000, then the top 5 of users should pay $100 each in fees (5 out of 100 use 50% of the bandwidth and thus should hold half the cost.) The other 95 people each pay $5.26 for the bandwidth they use, on average.
The OP is saying that's not going to happen - Broadband will still be $50/mo regardless of how much you use, PLUS a bandwidth surcharge. It's the total use of bandwidth that (supposedly) makes thew service cost $50/mo in the first place, so those who use the bulk of it will only be charged twice.
I would be very interested in using REAL numbers for the above example, because if that 5%/50% ratio is true I'm suspecting the overcharge for the rest of the consumers more than makes up for the overuse of that 5%. That is, presumably, the whole point of charging so much.
As someone use DOES use bucketloads of bandwidth from time to time, I can say that I wouldn't completely mind being billed-by-the-byte providing: a) There was no quota ceiling (I should be allowed to buy as much bandwidth as I want/need) and b) The base rate was cometitive enough that, if I used minimal banwidth, services like Dialup and DSL would be viable alternatives.
That, of course, is never going to happen. =Smidge=
Show me a place where a software engineer is legally responsible for their work? That's kind of what I was getting at...
Perhaps there are some niche areas involving life-safety adn critical systems this would apply to: Medical devices, passenger aircraft, etc. that use software that needs to be certified six ways from Sunday, but even then I don't know if the programmer as an individual is held liable for that software's performance.
A typical Professional Engineer can't hide behind a company. In that sense, I don't think it's entirely acceptable for someone to sell themselves as a "Software Engineer." =Smidge=
Engineering licenses are the State's responsibility. Legally speaking, you can not provide services as a "Professional Engineer" without a state specific license (Some states will accept valid out-of-state licenses though, I think, at least for some purposes.)
I'm not aware of any Software Engineering licenses, and I'm inclined to say calling yourself a "Software Engineer" carries a certain connotation that it doesn't really deserve. You can certainly have a degree in software engineering, of course, but not everyone who gets a degree in electrical engineering is entitled to call themselves an Engineer.
While it would be pompous to say there's no "engineering" in Software Engineering, I feel it's equally pompous to call yourself a engineer professionally unless you hold both personal and legal liability for the quality of your work. If your code screws up and you, personally, don't end up in court... =Smidge=
Coal gasification plants for instance are said to be a lot cleaner than "conventional" coal plants, albeit not when it comes to the release of CO2 unfortunately, in fact a lot more CO2 is created.
Considering coal is nearly pure CARBON, producing more CO2 is a good thing - it means we're burning it more completely, thus more efficiently, and we'll ultimately need less of it. I'm sorry if you slept though high school chemistry.
As others have said, CO2 is heavier than air. A lot of CO2 was already in those oil wells before they were ever drilled out, too, so in a sense we'd just be putting it back where it came from. It's been done elsewhere to great effect too.
Nobody (in their right mind) is saying this is the solution. It is, however, an important stopgap measure to buy us much needed time. =Smidge=
How is the claim bogus? The tiger can run 35mph. 55 degrees is a fairly steep angle but if the animal is strong enough to get that kind of speed in "only a few feet" then it doesn't seem that outrageous.
Why would it jump from the bottom of the moat? The whole point of the 33-foot distance is to account for the moat's width.
Why would it matter if the moat is filled with water? The math is based on the tiger jumping OVER it.
If I had to criticise anything, it's that diagram the article has. That's not a parabolic trajectory! =Smidge=
At some point somebody said "make the fence 12'-6" high" - that's the designer. That person did not properly consider the requirements (if they did at all) and the design was flawed. You can not say it was "fine when it was built" because it wasn't - the lack of failure up to this point can be better attributed to luck. Not that I feel bad for the people who taunted it, but a tiger could have jumped that fence for any reason at any time.
It was a maintenance failure because nobody bothered to check the design. Was the fence ever replaced or significantly repaired? Maybe the problem is deeper in the system... the "standards" that the inspectors used were flawed. It's a little unfair to blame administration when there are flawed requirements, or none at all. There should be a lot of re-evaluation going on in zoos across the country because of this. =Smidge=
Seriously, you'd think the people who designed the enclosure would know how to do that kind of math... or at least be smart enough to get a consult. I wonder how many aquarium designs they went through before they finally made one that held its contents properly...
Sure there's a lot of crappy maps - especially some of the older ones when the game first came out - but there's a lot of really good ones that add new game play mechanics like altered gravity fields and unique physics objects. Definitely worth checking out. =Smidge=
Free speech already doesn't cover inciting panic, so if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" causing a panic they would be arrested. Rightfully so IMHO.
Not that I agree with the law, but at least I can sort of see where the idea comes from... not everyone is properly educated to operate a geiger counter and determine what its readings really mean in a given situation, and there is really no need for such a device in the hands of the general public.
If people are really that paranoid to begin with, then it's even more likely that they're going to report false positives. Think unconditional trust in a device you don't fully understand combined with the sort of paranoid "any minute now" mentality of someone who would buy and use a personal radiation detector. I would suggest people with a constant fear of radiation exposure use simple dosimeter badges instead - those are cheap, near-impossible to use incorrectly, and need to be professionally analyzed. No user error, no false positives, no panic. =Smidge=
I don't agree with that. Especially with the more advanced kits which have more unique parts.
When I got LEGO sets, I usually spent time building the models from the included instructions... which not only was awesome because the models were great, but it also helped me understand how any new parts worked.
For example, one of the most advanced sets I ever got was a moderately large rescue helicopter model (alternate was a hovercraft/swamp boat thing... not quite as cool). New parts for me in this set included (as I fondly remember) a ball joint, universal joints, and flexible cables with ball and socket joints.
The joystick in the cockpit actually tilted the main rotor while it spun, the winch on the side worked, and the landing gear retracted. It was awesome.
The point is, this kind of model easily demonstrated how these various parts are used, and building them provides a lot of useful practice for when you inevitably disassemble them and make something of your own imagination. Just about the only parts from that model I never really used anywhere else were the seats. =Smidge=
That's funny, I thought a "meltdown" was when the core overheats and actually begins to... you know, melt. I can't think of any reactors that actually use carbon as a mediator anyway...
I thought about this myself. One possible solution that I considered would be to maintain a local list of files on your server and their CRC/Hash values. A script on the server would scan all the files and output a similar list than you could then check against your local copy and would quickly identify any new or changed files. This could be set to a cron job to do periodic scans or just initiate a manual scan whenever.
Might not be the best solution but it should be easy to implement. Larger sites can do incremental scans. It would be harder to detect corruption of databases, though, unless you know what to look for or have a concrete way of validating the contents. =Smidge=
What constitutes a "full international community" ? Is a group of knowledgeable people from all over the world good enough? That's what the board of directors is.
Is a committee of government representatives from all over the world good enough? They have that too.
Is a committee of private sector and industry representatives from all over the world good enough? They have that too.
At what point does it become a multinational organization? Also, answer my original question instead of throwing around profanities. =Smidge=
"Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" - all they do is manage the DNS system and IP spaces. Morality/privacy/trademark issues only come up regarding domain names, and then it falls on the domain registrars anyway. ICANN just handles the technical stuff behind the scenes. =Smidge=
To say the International Telecommunication Union is part fo the UN is just as ignorant as saying ICANN is part fo the US government. The ITU was born from the UN but is not controlled by it, much like ICANN.
And you still haven't answered my question. If anything, you reinforced my point because ICANN is just as multinational as the ITU. =Smidge=
I don't suppose you can elaborate on exactly WHY and HOW a multinational organization would be an improvement? ICANN is already run by a board of directors composed of people from all over the globe who represent their own international interests. It also takes advice both from a committee which represents even more governments from around the world and another committee that represents organizations and industries across the globe.
On top of that, the US government has little or not actual control over ICANN's daily oerations. The cat is out of the bag, sort of speak, and there is no way the US government can effectively control the internet as a whole even if it wanted to, since the rest of the world is sufficiently set up to operate without it - with the exception of content services based in the US, which are privately controlled anyway.
So other than the generic "USA sux" metality, what's the motivation for total globalization of ICANN's functions? What will this accomplish other than create another incompetent, ineffectual and political circle-jerk like the United Nations? =Smidge=
I think a large part of the game's charm is it's simplicity. Stark, naked simplicity. Remember back in the "good ol' days" of gaming when the best games had the fewest mechanics and nuances? THink of the original Super Mario Bros. or Sonic the Hedgehog games... barely more complex than "Run to the right and jump at the right times" but they are eternal classics for many and have earned all the praise they've received.
Portal is very straightforward both in control and objective. The environment is clean and homogenious, with a minimum amount of props needed to create the challange without "overthinking" it. You can count the number of game elements on your fingers and they are all rather intuitive in nature: Buttons, doors, elevators, moving platforms, ball launchers and catchers, and blocks. It's basically an old-school 2D platform/puzzle game at heart and that strikes a chord with a lot of people.
The only time this breaks down is at the end of the game, and that's very deliberate.
You're still a douchebag for getting a Companion Cube tattoo, though. As big a fan as I am, I must admit that point. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
The button IS on the left hand side. You're just viewing it from the front/right side.
=Smidge=
Stenography in goatse... that's so sinister it's brilliant!
=Smidge=
Well here's the thing.
Just about everyone in the US has at least two government issued IDs: A driver's license (state issued) and a social security card (federally issued). Social security cards do not have a photo. For those that do not have a driver's license, a passport is also acceptable (as someone already mentioned) as photo ID.
There are two reasons why no rational person likes the Real ID Act. First, a minor point, is that we already have the above ID options and they work just fine. Second, and more important, there is currently no massive federally-controlled database containing ALL of the information in one spot. Given the government's track record of ineptitude and maleficence - especially in the past eight years - the last thing a sane person wants is to put all of the nation's personal information into the exclusive hands of a single government entity.
In short, it's both redundant and dangerous for our liberty. Of course all the chicken-littles will cry that we need it for security but even they know deep inside that's a load of shit.
=Smidge=
That is actually a very interesting point. I mean, if your power bill suddenly shot up by a factor of 3 or 4 you'd probably raise hell about what the cause was, right? Probably wouldn't take long to find that someone has an extension cord plugged into your long forgotten porch outlet.
In fact, that's probably something ISPs can offer RIGHT NOW without a new pricing scheme: Include, as part of the bill statement, a record of monthly bandwidth usage for the past year. I'll bet they probably keep such records already... Just take a look at your bandwidth usage and most people can probably guess something's up.
=Smidge=
I think you missed the point of what he was trying to say.
If 5% of subscribers use 50% of the network's bandwidth, then those 5% should be pay 50% of the costs.
The other 95% who, by comparison, use very little should also be charged proportionally less. To use completely arbitrary numbers:
If the network of 100 users goes through 1TB of bandwidth a month in total at a cost of $1000, then the top 5 of users should pay $100 each in fees (5 out of 100 use 50% of the bandwidth and thus should hold half the cost.) The other 95 people each pay $5.26 for the bandwidth they use, on average.
The OP is saying that's not going to happen - Broadband will still be $50/mo regardless of how much you use, PLUS a bandwidth surcharge. It's the total use of bandwidth that (supposedly) makes thew service cost $50/mo in the first place, so those who use the bulk of it will only be charged twice.
I would be very interested in using REAL numbers for the above example, because if that 5%/50% ratio is true I'm suspecting the overcharge for the rest of the consumers more than makes up for the overuse of that 5%. That is, presumably, the whole point of charging so much.
As someone use DOES use bucketloads of bandwidth from time to time, I can say that I wouldn't completely mind being billed-by-the-byte providing: a) There was no quota ceiling (I should be allowed to buy as much bandwidth as I want/need) and b) The base rate was cometitive enough that, if I used minimal banwidth, services like Dialup and DSL would be viable alternatives.
That, of course, is never going to happen.
=Smidge=
Perhaps there are some niche areas involving life-safety adn critical systems this would apply to: Medical devices, passenger aircraft, etc. that use software that needs to be certified six ways from Sunday, but even then I don't know if the programmer as an individual is held liable for that software's performance.
A typical Professional Engineer can't hide behind a company. In that sense, I don't think it's entirely acceptable for someone to sell themselves as a "Software Engineer."
=Smidge=
Engineering licenses are the State's responsibility. Legally speaking, you can not provide services as a "Professional Engineer" without a state specific license (Some states will accept valid out-of-state licenses though, I think, at least for some purposes.)
I'm not aware of any Software Engineering licenses, and I'm inclined to say calling yourself a "Software Engineer" carries a certain connotation that it doesn't really deserve. You can certainly have a degree in software engineering, of course, but not everyone who gets a degree in electrical engineering is entitled to call themselves an Engineer.
While it would be pompous to say there's no "engineering" in Software Engineering, I feel it's equally pompous to call yourself a engineer professionally unless you hold both personal and legal liability for the quality of your work. If your code screws up and you, personally, don't end up in court...
=Smidge=
Considering coal is nearly pure CARBON, producing more CO2 is a good thing - it means we're burning it more completely, thus more efficiently, and we'll ultimately need less of it. I'm sorry if you slept though high school chemistry.
As others have said, CO2 is heavier than air. A lot of CO2 was already in those oil wells before they were ever drilled out, too, so in a sense we'd just be putting it back where it came from. It's been done elsewhere to great effect too.
Nobody (in their right mind) is saying this is the solution. It is, however, an important stopgap measure to buy us much needed time.
=Smidge=
How is the claim bogus? The tiger can run 35mph. 55 degrees is a fairly steep angle but if the animal is strong enough to get that kind of speed in "only a few feet" then it doesn't seem that outrageous.
Why would it jump from the bottom of the moat? The whole point of the 33-foot distance is to account for the moat's width.
Why would it matter if the moat is filled with water? The math is based on the tiger jumping OVER it.
If I had to criticise anything, it's that diagram the article has. That's not a parabolic trajectory!
=Smidge=
Just curious... what does that video have to do with... anything?
=Smidge=
It's a design problem and a maintenance failure.
At some point somebody said "make the fence 12'-6" high" - that's the designer. That person did not properly consider the requirements (if they did at all) and the design was flawed. You can not say it was "fine when it was built" because it wasn't - the lack of failure up to this point can be better attributed to luck. Not that I feel bad for the people who taunted it, but a tiger could have jumped that fence for any reason at any time.
It was a maintenance failure because nobody bothered to check the design. Was the fence ever replaced or significantly repaired? Maybe the problem is deeper in the system... the "standards" that the inspectors used were flawed. It's a little unfair to blame administration when there are flawed requirements, or none at all. There should be a lot of re-evaluation going on in zoos across the country because of this.
=Smidge=
Seriously, you'd think the people who designed the enclosure would know how to do that kind of math... or at least be smart enough to get a consult. I wonder how many aquarium designs they went through before they finally made one that held its contents properly...
=Smidge=
Fortunately Portal has a very strong community behind it with some very interesting and challenging custom maps.
http://www.myaperturelabs.com/
http://halflife2.filefront.com/files/Portal/Maps;9887
http://www.thinkingwithportals.com/
(To name a few)
Sure there's a lot of crappy maps - especially some of the older ones when the game first came out - but there's a lot of really good ones that add new game play mechanics like altered gravity fields and unique physics objects. Definitely worth checking out.
=Smidge=
Free speech already doesn't cover inciting panic, so if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" causing a panic they would be arrested. Rightfully so IMHO.
Not that I agree with the law, but at least I can sort of see where the idea comes from... not everyone is properly educated to operate a geiger counter and determine what its readings really mean in a given situation, and there is really no need for such a device in the hands of the general public.
If people are really that paranoid to begin with, then it's even more likely that they're going to report false positives. Think unconditional trust in a device you don't fully understand combined with the sort of paranoid "any minute now" mentality of someone who would buy and use a personal radiation detector. I would suggest people with a constant fear of radiation exposure use simple dosimeter badges instead - those are cheap, near-impossible to use incorrectly, and need to be professionally analyzed. No user error, no false positives, no panic.
=Smidge=
I don't agree with that. Especially with the more advanced kits which have more unique parts.
When I got LEGO sets, I usually spent time building the models from the included instructions... which not only was awesome because the models were great, but it also helped me understand how any new parts worked.
For example, one of the most advanced sets I ever got was a moderately large rescue helicopter model (alternate was a hovercraft/swamp boat thing... not quite as cool). New parts for me in this set included (as I fondly remember) a ball joint, universal joints, and flexible cables with ball and socket joints.
Here's a pic I found of it... http://www.chem.sunysb.edu/msl/LEGO/8856a.jpg
The joystick in the cockpit actually tilted the main rotor while it spun, the winch on the side worked, and the landing gear retracted. It was awesome.
The point is, this kind of model easily demonstrated how these various parts are used, and building them provides a lot of useful practice for when you inevitably disassemble them and make something of your own imagination. Just about the only parts from that model I never really used anywhere else were the seats.
=Smidge=
That's funny, I thought a "meltdown" was when the core overheats and actually begins to... you know, melt. I can't think of any reactors that actually use carbon as a mediator anyway...
=Smidge=
I thought about this myself. One possible solution that I considered would be to maintain a local list of files on your server and their CRC/Hash values. A script on the server would scan all the files and output a similar list than you could then check against your local copy and would quickly identify any new or changed files. This could be set to a cron job to do periodic scans or just initiate a manual scan whenever.
Might not be the best solution but it should be easy to implement. Larger sites can do incremental scans. It would be harder to detect corruption of databases, though, unless you know what to look for or have a concrete way of validating the contents.
=Smidge=
What constitutes a "full international community" ? Is a group of knowledgeable people from all over the world good enough? That's what the board of directors is.
Is a committee of government representatives from all over the world good enough? They have that too.
Is a committee of private sector and industry representatives from all over the world good enough? They have that too.
At what point does it become a multinational organization? Also, answer my original question instead of throwing around profanities.
=Smidge=
ICANN doesn't regulate regulate content.
"Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" - all they do is manage the DNS system and IP spaces. Morality/privacy/trademark issues only come up regarding domain names, and then it falls on the domain registrars anyway. ICANN just handles the technical stuff behind the scenes.
=Smidge=
The government does not control ICANN.
Read that a few times until it sinks in, then try answering my question.
=Smidge=
To say the International Telecommunication Union is part fo the UN is just as ignorant as saying ICANN is part fo the US government. The ITU was born from the UN but is not controlled by it, much like ICANN.
And you still haven't answered my question. If anything, you reinforced my point because ICANN is just as multinational as the ITU.
=Smidge=
I don't suppose you can elaborate on exactly WHY and HOW a multinational organization would be an improvement? ICANN is already run by a board of directors composed of people from all over the globe who represent their own international interests. It also takes advice both from a committee which represents even more governments from around the world and another committee that represents organizations and industries across the globe.
On top of that, the US government has little or not actual control over ICANN's daily oerations. The cat is out of the bag, sort of speak, and there is no way the US government can effectively control the internet as a whole even if it wanted to, since the rest of the world is sufficiently set up to operate without it - with the exception of content services based in the US, which are privately controlled anyway.
So other than the generic "USA sux" metality, what's the motivation for total globalization of ICANN's functions? What will this accomplish other than create another incompetent, ineffectual and political circle-jerk like the United Nations?
=Smidge=
You missed this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulthewineguy/2163335738/in/set-72157603619920398/
=Smidge=
Apparently "lolcats" are now high art...
We're doomed.
=Smidge=
I think a large part of the game's charm is it's simplicity. Stark, naked simplicity. Remember back in the "good ol' days" of gaming when the best games had the fewest mechanics and nuances? THink of the original Super Mario Bros. or Sonic the Hedgehog games... barely more complex than "Run to the right and jump at the right times" but they are eternal classics for many and have earned all the praise they've received.
Portal is very straightforward both in control and objective. The environment is clean and homogenious, with a minimum amount of props needed to create the challange without "overthinking" it. You can count the number of game elements on your fingers and they are all rather intuitive in nature: Buttons, doors, elevators, moving platforms, ball launchers and catchers, and blocks. It's basically an old-school 2D platform/puzzle game at heart and that strikes a chord with a lot of people.
The only time this breaks down is at the end of the game, and that's very deliberate.
You're still a douchebag for getting a Companion Cube tattoo, though. As big a fan as I am, I must admit that point.
=Smidge=