They are obligated by law to have those documents either postmarked or otherwise furnished to you by Jan 31st. You might want to contact the IRS and report the worst offenders if it continues to be a problem next year.
Far more important is that if the intermediate certificate is compromised, you as the CA have ability to act. You know from your records who your customers are. What you need to do is:
1) Fix the glitch 2) Get the media that stores the trusted root certs private key out of the vault 3) Issue new intermediate certificates 4) return the root certs private key to vault 5) Start contacting your certificate customers and issuing them new certs, revoking the old ones along the way as customers reported they have switched, or if there *is* indication of a compromised cert, revoke immediately. 6). Revoke the old intermediate certificates as soon as 5 is complete.
If were signing client certificates directly with the trusted root like they once did you (as the CA) would be screwed royally. You would need to somehow get every client device to update their trusted roots. Or you'd have upset customers crying about how their reissued certs are untrusted by 3/4ths of the clients out there that nobody bothers to update and nobody who understands these things manages directly..
In that case i say all the more reason to stick with Ruby but use an abstract database API like DBI. You can keep throwing additional front end processors at the problem, good horizontal scaling on the front end, so Ruby's CPU heavy nature won't be an issue, raw compute is still getting cheaper faster than I/O. So I think it makes total sense to keep using tools like Ruby and Python that enable efficient development even at a hit to execution.
DBI will let you change database later with as little rework as possible, if you keep your database use to just storage, and keep you usage to basic table and constraint feature sets widely supported across all database engines. The RDBMS will take care of plumbing around locking and ACID considerations across multiple front ends for you. As well as allow you to run your reporting jobs or data warehouse ETLs without having to either take your main system offline or tightly integrate them with the front end.
Back on the scaling front using the more traditional database engines will give you the last 40 years of developed talent pool, and case studies on what works where scaling is concerned. The tools exist to build these things out for almost any use case. The tools exist on the NOSQL side to but they are more tools for building tools, its still immature and very much DIY.
Ultimately what you have to decide here is where are you going to get the most value for your time. NOSQL *might* offer you some better back end performance down the line, so if you think the data volume is going to get real big real fast give it look. It will certainly mean you will spend more energy working on the plumbing, and force you into dealing with many more unknowns. A RDBMS will provide almost all the plumbing to you; meaning you focus on the front end.
I disagree, he is concerned about scaling. The last thing in the world he should do is use a bunch of flat files, unless he really just needs to store the data, but he already said he needs to do reports and totals on it.
Also he is working in Ruby. The smart thing for him to do IMHO is write his program against ruby/DBI. It isn't the pretty database api, but it supports plenty of different backend options and it does not sound like his program needs especially complex database operations or queries. He can start working with something like SQLite as the database "server", and move up to something else, perhaps Postgress (which can be every bit as fast as the NOSQL solutions unless you are getting highly highly custom) without needing to alter his program.
More than that though the range of applications people use their computers for is stabilizing. First it was the spreadsheet than the word processor, than the WYSIWYG word processor. Next came the graphic arts and page layout stuff like Publisher (talking consumers end here not industrial uses) and Power point and photo editing. The PIM tools, and small database applications, got friendly somewhere around here. Next it was internet communications E-Mail and the WWW. People got some basic amateur design tools Visio sketch up etc; and then finally the masses got video editing, followed shortly by streaming media. The games and what was possible in terms of gaming was always expanding across this period of time as well 1978-2003ish.
Honestly there hasn't been much in terms of new 'killer apps' for the mass market. Unless you count Facebook and second wave of social media, but that isn't pushing the technology envelop on the client end by any stretch. The games have gotten a little fancier, and there have been other trendy fads but really what can your typical home user do now they could not pretty comfortably and completely do with circa 2003 software and equipment? My guess is almost nothing. I have no doubt someone can name a bunch of specific hobbies and trades that have evolved in that's 10 or 12 years but I am talking about what the average person leaves the Best Buy with here, and imagines doing when they walk in. There just have not been many new Applications for the PC lately.
This is a good point, but if they try to game the system stuffing a large batch of orders for very small numbers of shares to in order to as you describe stuff the box increasing their odds of acquiring or selling at least some shares over other peoples complete orders, any advantage they gain should be lost in increased commission fees; (hopefully)
Honestly I don't think it would do any harm to implement something like this. I don't think it will do much good personally, but I would not be opposed to it.
3 Days is a looong loooong time. I don't think minimum holding periods are fair to anyone, at least not above intervals of more than a few seconds. At three days imagine this situation.
On the 1st Joe buys 100 shares of $OIL_COMPANY at $10 a share. On the 3rd Jim buys 100 shares of $OIL_COMPANY for $11 a share. On the night of the third Joe and Jim are sitting at the bar watching the news, and discover $OIL_COMPANY just had a tanker run aground and its probably going to destroy a major fishery, the damages are almost certain to bankrupt $OIL_COMPANY.
Joe should be allowed sell his shares at the open on the fourth leaving Jim and everyone like him holding the bag? Joe has owned the company longer, possibly collected more dividends, paid less for the shares, he should be allowed to keep his profits at the expense of Jim and others like him? even though he and Jim both have the same quality information?
I don't see any justice or stabilizing effect to be gained with such long hold times, it will just discourage investing over all because anyone who makes a new purchase has to take the risk of sitting in a burning building while everyone else heads for the exists, until their hold period expires.
I can see doing trades in baskets of orders entered in say 60 second intervals and processed in random order inside the interval. That prevents a class system where guys with access to HFT have a shot at the getting in or out first all the time and moves it to where anyone with an Internet connection, a E-trade account, and a willingness to sit with three or four of the major news networks on a few tvs has a fair chance of transacting on whatever securities they are playing as quickly as anyone else. That seems okay.
This solution does more or less solve that problem as well. Nobody but the exchange will have a view of the orders for at least a 250ms but possibly as long as a half second under the parents scheme. That will anyone selling or buying in enough volume to be a market mover on anything but the smallest of micro caps likely has the technology to submit orders to each exchange they mean to trade on inside that window where the HFT guys will not have the opportunity to do any new price discovery.
That should effectively thwart the front running ( if its really happening on the scales many claim ). It will help the retail level investor who owns funds, that may have been themselves victims of front running. It will also minimally impact the operation of the market and price discovery behaviors for not HFT trading. This may help prevent a flash crash type situation as well because the HFT machines will have to wait to see if an exchange is really dropping before the open up their sales and short sales on other exchanges. I think its a good solution in those terms; but I remain unconvinced that HFT is really the problem many say it is; the evidence just isn't there.
As an American I am okay with that. I would not expect USAID to provide material support to groups the rest of the State Department wants to see go away.
Its one thing for USAID to give money in an overt and legal way to group some foreign regime might not like much, but tolerates within its boarders.
Its quite another for our aide organization to violating the laws for foreign countries, which at least in this case with Cuba they must have been because otherwise why the shell companies and secrecy.
USAID is suppose to be an aide organization. The moment they have to start laundering money they have gone off the reservation and entered CIA territory.
There is a place for clandestine operation to work against regimes we don't like, that is why we have a foreign intelligence agency, CIA. Our government is completely out of control and way to large this is just more proof!
Not only that it completely undermines the mission of USAID to have it associated with these type of shenanigans; its supposed to be about soft power, its supposed to be about building trust. Here we have one more department with in the government demonstrating laws don't matter, not ours and certainly not any other sovereigns. Shameful...
How exactly are industries on life support. Under the current model certainly. Things like sugar get taxed specifically to create a market corn syrup.
On the other hand if you apply a single fixed rate to broad classes of things, like the four or five classes total than you are not favoring and specific product or industry. Yes you create some advantage for domestic producers against foreign produces selling to domestic consumers, but we want that. Sure abandoning the idea of free trade will cause other nations to do the same and they will tax imports reducing our exports; again not sure that is a problem if what you are seeking is to stop this race to the bottom.
Because that is what free trade among peers(nations) with different environmental laws, different social welfare requirements, different education levels, etc is. It becomes a quest to do it as cheaply as possible. Any society that elects to have higher standards in these areas usually does so at the cost of people having fewer material goods, that does not change but with free trade you also get this aggressive worker displacement; yes better education etc allows them to compete for a while be having greater productivity but that only goes so far.
You don't have to get overly specific. Today we have huge volumes of tarried schedules, rather than pick winners and loosers and try and prop up specific industries, I'd argue the tarried schedule should be limited to a few broad categories; commodities, hard goods, labor, and everything else. One tax rate for each category.
That a politician is beholden to the corporations? No news there thanks to the conservative Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United.
Want to quit harping about that already. The H1B program existed long before that decision was handed down and it IS A FREE SPEECH issue. I don't think anyone should be barred using their property to promote a cause. Why should some Union be allowed to basically steer unlimited monies to a politician but a corporation not? It makes no sense. As far as campaign finance goes requirements should be for real disclosure, something we don't have today. That would make difference.
If you are tiny country or have small population yes it makes sense to bring in talent. When you are the 21st century USA with a plenty big population to fill most roles and a University system that is still considered among the worlds best, no I don't think it makes much sense at all.
How do reconcile a pro-education social policy with labor and economic policies that are opposed to developing your own talent?
The idea the USA *needs* to import tech workers is pure farce. If anything USA needs to put much tighter controls around the use of foreign labor. We should treat labor like any other import, wages paid to foreign workers ought to be taxed heavily. So if a company really really does *need* to bring someone in they *can* but would be heavily discouraged from doing so in other cases. There should be payroll taxes on foreign workers working for US companies in foreign countries as well, although these should be a much lower rate.
Real Immigration on the other hand isn't a problem. If people want to come here, have families here, live here as residents and be citizens; great! Then they are our people, attracting good talent is an investment in our own country.
Its pretty rare that I advocate taxing anything, but imports are an exception, I think we should go back to funding the operation of government primarily through import tariffs and foreign labor should no exception.
You make different rules for different types of things, you'll just end up with in this litigation about whether this is "computing" or etc. if you actually want a system of people are going to just game, you need a simple set of rules possible.
I did not make the management mistake, I specifically said "Someone who understands wood working" in other words someone else with knowledge and skill in that trade, not just any fool who happens to walk by.
There certainly are situations where sand paper is not the right tool but in the general sense if you smooth something with a large belt sander and years later the wood has twisted I can true it up with an electric plane, if that seems like the best approach to me.
On the other hand while another programmer might be able to pretty quickly get a sense of how your struts web application works over all, his Rails expertise is not going to enable him to quickly add features.
The trouble is the computer really does not fit the model of a carpenter. There are only so many ways one can shape and join wood. Whatever tools you pick the desired outcome is the same, its the degree of success that varies. Someone who understands wood working is going to be able to come along later and quickly understand the intent, he will be able to maintain or repair the work, and he isn't forced to use the same tools you did. His sandpaper is not going to be incompatible with the wood or finish you chose.
Computers just manipulate symbols. If you pick a radically different symbol set, and heap of frame works its impossible to just switch. You can't just grab any programer and more to work on stuff. Sure most can pick up a language quickly, but it takes time to get up to speed on the tooling and frameworks around it. So if you would have a serious staffing problem if you let everyone use the best fit tool set for each project.
Well you can give people are the security tools in the world and if they are careless they will still leave the door unlocked and the alarm disarmed. There will always come a point where a human being has to make a security decision, because fundamentally all these machines exist in service of us humans in the first place.
Security is about risk, if someone does not perceive the probability times the costs of potential losses from an attack to be worth investing in learning enough about SSL/TSL, x.509 certificates, and the trust model to use it safely; they won't. Other people who do see the value, can effectively protect themselves with these tools against all but the most sophisticated attacks that generally require collusion by multiple parties.
No matter how much you invest in security and no matter what tools you employ there are some attacks you will not be able to resist. Finding the right balance is important.
I don't think SSL is to hard to use for must of what it protects though, "things should be as simple as possible but no simpler" Every way I can think to simplify the current system makes it more vulnerable not less.
This is significantly below the 2010 Federal Poverty Level of $22,050 for a family of four.
Nice pointless statistic there. There is no reason the federal poverty level for a family of four is relevant to a discussion of the minimum wage.
Lots and lots of minimum wage workers are minors, and dependents. They don't need a living wage. By your own statistic a family with two minimum wage workers would in fact be above the poverty line! Given the 77% female work force participation its clear most families with a minimum wage earner would be multi income.
A single young person can support themselves on minimum wage in many but not all US markets.
Women tend to hold many minimum wage jobs because often those jobs offer somewhat flexible hours, if you can afford unpaid time off. Women takes these jobs because they want that flexibility for other familiar responsibilities and are only working to get supplemental income into the family not as primary earners. So again don't need a living wage.
Increasing the minimum wage will do a few things:
1) Drive the economics of automation and productivity increases which will create more unemployment of unskilled workers, not less. Although this might be good for the economy broadly but its not good for the group minimum wage increase advocates claim to seek to help.
2) It will raise costs which will be reflected in consumer prices, effectively raising the cost of living. Lowering the quality of life the slightly more successful enjoy. In otherwords its an attack on the middle class.
My question is this voluntary? How is exactly does one opt out if they prefer traditional care? Doesn't seem to be like a recent victim of gross trauma, can exactly make an informed decision.
Slashdot Mirror
They are obligated by law to have those documents either postmarked or otherwise furnished to you by Jan 31st. You might want to contact the IRS and report the worst offenders if it continues to be a problem next year.
Far more important is that if the intermediate certificate is compromised, you as the CA have ability to act. You know from your records who your customers are. What you need to do is:
1) Fix the glitch
2) Get the media that stores the trusted root certs private key out of the vault
3) Issue new intermediate certificates
4) return the root certs private key to vault
5) Start contacting your certificate customers and issuing them new certs, revoking the old ones along the way as customers reported they have switched, or if there *is* indication of a compromised cert, revoke immediately.
6). Revoke the old intermediate certificates as soon as 5 is complete.
If were signing client certificates directly with the trusted root like they once did you (as the CA) would be screwed royally. You would need to somehow get every client device to update their trusted roots. Or you'd have upset customers crying about how their reissued certs are untrusted by 3/4ths of the clients out there that nobody bothers to update and nobody who understands these things manages directly..
In that case i say all the more reason to stick with Ruby but use an abstract database API like DBI. You can keep throwing additional front end processors at the problem, good horizontal scaling on the front end, so Ruby's CPU heavy nature won't be an issue, raw compute is still getting cheaper faster than I/O. So I think it makes total sense to keep using tools like Ruby and Python that enable efficient development even at a hit to execution.
DBI will let you change database later with as little rework as possible, if you keep your database use to just storage, and keep you usage to basic table and constraint feature sets widely supported across all database engines. The RDBMS will take care of plumbing around locking and ACID considerations across multiple front ends for you. As well as allow you to run your reporting jobs or data warehouse ETLs without having to either take your main system offline or tightly integrate them with the front end.
Back on the scaling front using the more traditional database engines will give you the last 40 years of developed talent pool, and case studies on what works where scaling is concerned. The tools exist to build these things out for almost any use case. The tools exist on the NOSQL side to but they are more tools for building tools, its still immature and very much DIY.
Ultimately what you have to decide here is where are you going to get the most value for your time. NOSQL *might* offer you some better back end performance down the line, so if you think the data volume is going to get real big real fast give it look. It will certainly mean you will spend more energy working on the plumbing, and force you into dealing with many more unknowns. A RDBMS will provide almost all the plumbing to you; meaning you focus on the front end.
I disagree, he is concerned about scaling. The last thing in the world he should do is use a bunch of flat files, unless he really just needs to store the data, but he already said he needs to do reports and totals on it.
Also he is working in Ruby. The smart thing for him to do IMHO is write his program against ruby/DBI. It isn't the pretty database api, but it supports plenty of different backend options and it does not sound like his program needs especially complex database operations or queries. He can start working with something like SQLite as the database "server", and move up to something else, perhaps Postgress (which can be every bit as fast as the NOSQL solutions unless you are getting highly highly custom) without needing to alter his program.
More than that though the range of applications people use their computers for is stabilizing. First it was the spreadsheet than the word processor, than the WYSIWYG word processor. Next came the graphic arts and page layout stuff like Publisher (talking consumers end here not industrial uses) and Power point and photo editing. The PIM tools, and small database applications, got friendly somewhere around here. Next it was internet communications E-Mail and the WWW. People got some basic amateur design tools Visio sketch up etc; and then finally the masses got video editing, followed shortly by streaming media. The games and what was possible in terms of gaming was always expanding across this period of time as well 1978-2003ish.
Honestly there hasn't been much in terms of new 'killer apps' for the mass market. Unless you count Facebook and second wave of social media, but that isn't pushing the technology envelop on the client end by any stretch. The games have gotten a little fancier, and there have been other trendy fads but really what can your typical home user do now they could not pretty comfortably and completely do with circa 2003 software and equipment? My guess is almost nothing. I have no doubt someone can name a bunch of specific hobbies and trades that have evolved in that's 10 or 12 years but I am talking about what the average person leaves the Best Buy with here, and imagines doing when they walk in. There just have not been many new Applications for the PC lately.
1) BAHAHAHA
2) Damn people are thoughtless jerks
3) Someones insurance rates are going up
This is a good point, but if they try to game the system stuffing a large batch of orders for very small numbers of shares to in order to as you describe stuff the box increasing their odds of acquiring or selling at least some shares over other peoples complete orders, any advantage they gain should be lost in increased commission fees; (hopefully)
Honestly I don't think it would do any harm to implement something like this. I don't think it will do much good personally, but I would not be opposed to it.
3 Days is a looong loooong time. I don't think minimum holding periods are fair to anyone, at least not above intervals of more than a few seconds. At three days imagine this situation.
On the 1st Joe buys 100 shares of $OIL_COMPANY at $10 a share. On the 3rd Jim buys 100 shares of $OIL_COMPANY for $11 a share. On the night of the third Joe and Jim are sitting at the bar watching the news, and discover $OIL_COMPANY just had a tanker run aground and its probably going to destroy a major fishery, the damages are almost certain to bankrupt $OIL_COMPANY.
Joe should be allowed sell his shares at the open on the fourth leaving Jim and everyone like him holding the bag? Joe has owned the company longer, possibly collected more dividends, paid less for the shares, he should be allowed to keep his profits at the expense of Jim and others like him? even though he and Jim both have the same quality information?
I don't see any justice or stabilizing effect to be gained with such long hold times, it will just discourage investing over all because anyone who makes a new purchase has to take the risk of sitting in a burning building while everyone else heads for the exists, until their hold period expires.
I can see doing trades in baskets of orders entered in say 60 second intervals and processed in random order inside the interval. That prevents a class system where guys with access to HFT have a shot at the getting in or out first all the time and moves it to where anyone with an Internet connection, a E-trade account, and a willingness to sit with three or four of the major news networks on a few tvs has a fair chance of transacting on whatever securities they are playing as quickly as anyone else. That seems okay.
This solution does more or less solve that problem as well. Nobody but the exchange will have a view of the orders for at least a 250ms but possibly as long as a half second under the parents scheme. That will anyone selling or buying in enough volume to be a market mover on anything but the smallest of micro caps likely has the technology to submit orders to each exchange they mean to trade on inside that window where the HFT guys will not have the opportunity to do any new price discovery.
That should effectively thwart the front running ( if its really happening on the scales many claim ). It will help the retail level investor who owns funds, that may have been themselves victims of front running. It will also minimally impact the operation of the market and price discovery behaviors for not HFT trading. This may help prevent a flash crash type situation as well because the HFT machines will have to wait to see if an exchange is really dropping before the open up their sales and short sales on other exchanges. I think its a good solution in those terms; but I remain unconvinced that HFT is really the problem many say it is; the evidence just isn't there.
As an American I am okay with that. I would not expect USAID to provide material support to groups the rest of the State Department wants to see go away.
Its one thing for USAID to give money in an overt and legal way to group some foreign regime might not like much, but tolerates within its boarders.
Its quite another for our aide organization to violating the laws for foreign countries, which at least in this case with Cuba they must have been because otherwise why the shell companies and secrecy.
USAID is suppose to be an aide organization. The moment they have to start laundering money they have gone off the reservation and entered CIA territory.
There is a place for clandestine operation to work against regimes we don't like, that is why we have a foreign intelligence agency, CIA. Our government is completely out of control and way to large this is just more proof!
Not only that it completely undermines the mission of USAID to have it associated with these type of shenanigans; its supposed to be about soft power, its supposed to be about building trust. Here we have one more department with in the government demonstrating laws don't matter, not ours and certainly not any other sovereigns. Shameful...
How exactly are industries on life support. Under the current model certainly. Things like sugar get taxed specifically to create a market corn syrup.
On the other hand if you apply a single fixed rate to broad classes of things, like the four or five classes total than you are not favoring and specific product or industry. Yes you create some advantage for domestic producers against foreign produces selling to domestic consumers, but we want that. Sure abandoning the idea of free trade will cause other nations to do the same and they will tax imports reducing our exports; again not sure that is a problem if what you are seeking is to stop this race to the bottom.
Because that is what free trade among peers(nations) with different environmental laws, different social welfare requirements, different education levels, etc is. It becomes a quest to do it as cheaply as possible. Any society that elects to have higher standards in these areas usually does so at the cost of people having fewer material goods, that does not change but with free trade you also get this aggressive worker displacement; yes better education etc allows them to compete for a while be having greater productivity but that only goes so far.
You don't have to get overly specific. Today we have huge volumes of tarried schedules, rather than pick winners and loosers and try and prop up specific industries, I'd argue the tarried schedule should be limited to a few broad categories; commodities, hard goods, labor, and everything else. One tax rate for each category.
Never for specific products like sugar.
That a politician is beholden to the corporations? No news there thanks to the conservative Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United.
Want to quit harping about that already. The H1B program existed long before that decision was handed down and it IS A FREE SPEECH issue. I don't think anyone should be barred using their property to promote a cause. Why should some Union be allowed to basically steer unlimited monies to a politician but a corporation not? It makes no sense. As far as campaign finance goes requirements should be for real disclosure, something we don't have today. That would make difference.
If you are tiny country or have small population yes it makes sense to bring in talent. When you are the 21st century USA with a plenty big population to fill most roles and a University system that is still considered among the worlds best, no I don't think it makes much sense at all.
How do reconcile a pro-education social policy with labor and economic policies that are opposed to developing your own talent?
The idea the USA *needs* to import tech workers is pure farce. If anything USA needs to put much tighter controls around the use of foreign labor. We should treat labor like any other import, wages paid to foreign workers ought to be taxed heavily. So if a company really really does *need* to bring someone in they *can* but would be heavily discouraged from doing so in other cases. There should be payroll taxes on foreign workers working for US companies in foreign countries as well, although these should be a much lower rate.
Real Immigration on the other hand isn't a problem. If people want to come here, have families here, live here as residents and be citizens; great! Then they are our people, attracting good talent is an investment in our own country.
Its pretty rare that I advocate taxing anything, but imports are an exception, I think we should go back to funding the operation of government primarily through import tariffs and foreign labor should no exception.
Interesting thought, what if we rested people for ignorance and sentenced them to school.
You make different rules for different types of things, you'll just end up with in this litigation about whether this is "computing" or etc. if you actually want a system of people are going to just game, you need a simple set of rules possible.
I did not make the management mistake, I specifically said "Someone who understands wood working" in other words someone else with knowledge and skill in that trade, not just any fool who happens to walk by.
There certainly are situations where sand paper is not the right tool but in the general sense if you smooth something with a large belt sander and years later the wood has twisted I can true it up with an electric plane, if that seems like the best approach to me.
On the other hand while another programmer might be able to pretty quickly get a sense of how your struts web application works over all, his Rails expertise is not going to enable him to quickly add features.
Could we also get it in Libraries of Congress by volume not weight of course.
The trouble is the computer really does not fit the model of a carpenter. There are only so many ways one can shape and join wood. Whatever tools you pick the desired outcome is the same, its the degree of success that varies. Someone who understands wood working is going to be able to come along later and quickly understand the intent, he will be able to maintain or repair the work, and he isn't forced to use the same tools you did. His sandpaper is not going to be incompatible with the wood or finish you chose.
Computers just manipulate symbols. If you pick a radically different symbol set, and heap of frame works its impossible to just switch. You can't just grab any programer and more to work on stuff. Sure most can pick up a language quickly, but it takes time to get up to speed on the tooling and frameworks around it. So if you would have a serious staffing problem if you let everyone use the best fit tool set for each project.
Well you can give people are the security tools in the world and if they are careless they will still leave the door unlocked and the alarm disarmed. There will always come a point where a human being has to make a security decision, because fundamentally all these machines exist in service of us humans in the first place.
Security is about risk, if someone does not perceive the probability times the costs of potential losses from an attack to be worth investing in learning enough about SSL/TSL, x.509 certificates, and the trust model to use it safely; they won't. Other people who do see the value, can effectively protect themselves with these tools against all but the most sophisticated attacks that generally require collusion by multiple parties.
No matter how much you invest in security and no matter what tools you employ there are some attacks you will not be able to resist. Finding the right balance is important.
I don't think SSL is to hard to use for must of what it protects though, "things should be as simple as possible but no simpler" Every way I can think to simplify the current system makes it more vulnerable not less.
And here I thought the answer was the NSA tells them and they know because they have root access to these systems.
The fact that it's actually through real police efforts actually makes me feel a tiny bit better.
Probably just parallel construction
This is significantly below the 2010 Federal Poverty Level of $22,050 for a family of four.
Nice pointless statistic there. There is no reason the federal poverty level for a family of four is relevant to a discussion of the minimum wage.
Lots and lots of minimum wage workers are minors, and dependents. They don't need a living wage. By your own statistic a family with two minimum wage workers would in fact be above the poverty line! Given the 77% female work force participation its clear most families with a minimum wage earner would be multi income.
A single young person can support themselves on minimum wage in many but not all US markets.
Women tend to hold many minimum wage jobs because often those jobs offer somewhat flexible hours, if you can afford unpaid time off. Women takes these jobs because they want that flexibility for other familiar responsibilities and are only working to get supplemental income into the family not as primary earners. So again don't need a living wage.
Increasing the minimum wage will do a few things:
1) Drive the economics of automation and productivity increases which will create more unemployment of unskilled workers, not less. Although this might be good for the economy broadly but its not good for the group minimum wage increase advocates claim to seek to help.
2) It will raise costs which will be reflected in consumer prices, effectively raising the cost of living. Lowering the quality of life the slightly more successful enjoy. In otherwords its an attack on the middle class.
My question is this voluntary? How is exactly does one opt out if they prefer traditional care? Doesn't seem to be like a recent victim of gross trauma, can exactly make an informed decision.