capable of displaying false images in the first place was a wise one.
I've had design meetings practically come to blows when similarly asinine suggestions were made in the context of things that by comparison were about as critical as a recipe database. Yes, you would think in "system to positively identify bombs" the flowchart box labeled "automatically and without further inquiry disregard positive image of bomb" would raise a few eyebrows. Geezuz.
It is sort of silly and amusing how with something as innocuous as these temperment matrices how easy it is to twist the results around like a horoscope and sound golden no matter what.
...most of the ones I've seen "in the wild" are of the b.s. variety. But, by "knowing the answers" and there not being any "correct" ones, well, that's the point. However, there _are_ answers that together will generate a particular result and for the b.s. tests that seem to be in use (probably because they're cheap and short enough that people will put up with them), there are pretty obvious categories of people that they're looking for.
I got tired of one particularly horrible one years ago that was just insultingly obvious--of the "if you know your second cousin twice removed in another state is stealing pencils, do you call the police?" So, I started giving totally "ethical" responses to everything, which oddly enough weren't far from the truth--that is, "no, it's none of my business, let karma sort it out." When I "failed" the test, I confronted the yahoo who "interpreted" the results and asked him point blank, would you really want the psychotic nutjob this test considers "honest?" He agreed and dug up the phone number of the quack who wrote the test.
Honestly, these tests aren't very long and having seen "real" results for whatever temperments, there's no way you could tell a "deceitful" person from an "honest" person if all the answers are the same. A truly deceitful person will fly under the radar because they know the test and know the answers.
Besides, the real problem here is taking something that is actually a relatively neutral analysis and making screening decisions based on the results. In the case of Meyers-Briggs, I'm an INTJ, so how do I compare to a ESFP?
The problem here isn't that the tests are useless, it's that the tests are designed for situations where there is no incentive to deliberately skew the results. If someone's financial livelihood depends on how they "look on paper," it for all reasonable intents invalidates the foundation of the test. Sure, people do the same thing in person, but the problem is relying on these results sight-unseen and giving any credence to the supposedly "objective" results as if it retains any scientific validity.
The only things that are illegal are those that reveal "protected class" status (e.g. race, sex, religion, handicap etc.) -- and even then, it's not illegal per se to ask, it is only illegal to actually screen people out based on that information. Obviously, someone seeking a lawsuit will have a pretty strong case just from the asking, but that only means it is well inadvisable to bring it up, not that it is illegal to do so.
So, those lists of "legal" questions you may see are merely recommendations of what you can ask and not risk litigation. That doesn't mean it is illegal to go beyond those questions, just that you're getting into unsafe territory. You could, say, ask someone "what do you do for fun on Sunday." That's not literally saying "are you a Christian," and the person might be a christian but say "I go to brunch," but they might well say "I sing in the choir at my church" and voila, you could now be accused of discrimination based on religion--even though you never actually asked about it directly. Similarly, you could try to be "safe" and ferret out recreational activity on Saturday but get smacked with "Oh, I go to temple." Voila, now you're potentially an anti-semite. The point of those guidelines is to avoid questions that will give anyone the opportunity to volunteer that information--but that isn't law, it's just good advice.
You will filter out only the truly stupid with these tests and will be needlessly polluting the profiles of very talented people. These things tend to overinflate the value and/or severity of very normal variances in personality. So, you answer "I'd rather go to a museum than an amusement park," "I work best in quiet solitude" and "I enjoy hunting and fishing over canasta" and all of a sudden "candidate X is a sociopathic introvert with severe avoidance issues who can't work with other people and is possibly armed and dangerous."
The true sociopaths that you REALLY want to avoid, however, are generally smart enough to navigate these tests better than the people who write them. You could give them the Meyers-Briggs type/Keirsey temperment desired and they could answer the questions perfectly to hit it on the spot every time.
People are responding that all this crap is on the card and that someone will be able to get a home loan, access their bank records and whatever other assorted "identity theft" issues--and that's a crock. As for why the biometric source _and_ the ID?
How much do you know about identity systems and databases in general? It is MUCH easier to grab an index and do a 1:1 comparison to verify identity than to do a pattern match on a 1:500000000 scale.
No, I did RTFA. I'm not arguing that it will be effective in that capacity. What I'm arguing is that access to that ID number does not give access to anything else. People are saying that all this personal info is just a radio signal away and that you'll be the victim of identity theft, blah blah blah. As for the rest? Meh. Your more likely to be the victim of such number association by random chance than active scanning--because that's ALL the chip sends out. Your cellphone is more dangerous, by a long shot.
Just because I think the chicken-littles are full of it doesn't mean I'm a fanboy for every conceivable implication of the system.
No, it's not in the article, but it IS part of the USA-Visit system and the ID is just the index number to the data they collect. This article is not the definitive source of information on that program. I would suggest you search Google News for the "missing" information.
I'm not arguing the merits of RFID, I'm arguing the asinine absurdity of thinking that access to that ID number is any more dangerous than any of the plethora of similarly [pseudo]-random numbers that are associated with us already.
Nearly everyone carries them and they broadcast a number that just as well identifies you--but even better, you can call it up to make sure the right person is carrying it at the time.
You'd also have to have the same finger prints and iris geometry...and that isn't on the card.
The amount of work you'd have to go through to make this ID useful as a "forgery" is so ridiculous as to make it possible only for those who have access to a government intelligence agency's resources...or a checking account large enough to simulate such.
"What we're putting in the card is possibly nothing but a 96-digit serial number that is random and would do nothing but point back to a database...someone would have to hack into our database at the same time,"
Sparing the details, there are only 771M possible SSNs currently out there. If you came from, say, Vermont, the odds of guessing your SSN correctly, in order, the first time would only be a 1:2M. It's easier to calculate a valid SSN than to harvest one by any means.
What's NOT easy to do is match the other _necessary_ information to make that number useful and that is no different for this or any other number, whether stored in an RFID chip, printed in a barcode or tatooed on your butt.
That ID is tied to biometric data and corroborating identification -- e.g scans of foreign passport/visas/drivers license etc. etc. Oh, and PHOTOGRAPHS.
All that is on that damned card is an index number. So, sure, you go right ahead and swipe that baby at customs and have a good time with SGT Ufia.
Honestly, do you people really think these things through? Cripes. The ID by itself is totally, 100%, COMPLETELY USELESS to anyone but the person associated with it unless you have madd haxx0r $|<i||z and can alter the central database that actually contains something other than a single number.
...the fact that they don't have the database to match the "ID" in the RFID, perhaps?
I mean, how useful would it be to you to have a list of all the social security numbers of everyone in a baseball stadium if you didn't have any of the names? Hell, you might as well just randomly generate the numbers.
Wouldn't be to terribly risky for me to say that my SSN is 872-46-2392 (it's not) if there's no way for you to get any other identifying information with which to match it as by itself it is totally useless.
The costs of regulation and safety really hinder the poor's ability to own and operate personal aircraft as well, but I doubt you lament the fact that we don't have many old jalopies blithely flying over your house dropping parts and avgas into your pool.
Until IBM started dual-branding them--and then recently with them being completely rebranded--I doubt many knew whether they were coming from China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea or wherever. Now knowing precisely where they are coming from, and more importantly, where _all_ of the money is now going, purchasing behavior is different and the reasons for that are far more complicated than just "don't like foreigners."
When out of cash and desperately trying to get home in the middle of the night, handing over a credit card to a taxi driver armed with carbon paper is truly an unsettling experience. This would be perfect for that.
Americans are pretty well aware that most of their stuff is manufactured in Asia, but there's a different sense to getting things from Taiwan vs. China -- akin to someone deliberately buying Puerto Rican rum instead of Cuban rum. Calling it "unwarranted xenophobia" is more unwarranted than the supposed xenophobia. There are some very serious concerns with China from their labor standards and human rights record to their relations with North Korea and Taiwan.
Some people take those issues very, very seriously and would rather give their money to someone partnering with Taiwan, which indicates it is something more complex than simply being xenophobic. There are very real, very concrete and in many cases extremely valid reasons why people avoid Chinese products when they can.
When people bark that you're making a "political statement" by walking down the street holding hands, one grows quite tired of other people's "politics" and moves simply to ignoring them and getting on with life, but sure as hell not by disappearing into anonymity for your comfort. Don't like it? Don't look.
So, they're using hot water to split cold water into fuel that emits warm water. Where's the pollution? Hell, about the worst that could come from it is a catastrophic accident prodicing massive quantities of NaOH, resulting in a bumper season for lutefisk. Talk of toxic waste...
28% of all returns have no tax liability, 39% of those under $50k. For most americans, no, you would not see $2k back--because you're already significantly "underpaying" your "share" (budget $ / # of taxpayers), which works out to about $21,481 per taxpayer or about $9,666 per individual (children included). Now, the GDP/capita is $36k, for which an individual is taxed about $5,671. It is not until you reach $96,350 that you are taxed that share of $21,481--and taking the percentage of $96k out of the $11T GDP and applying it to the federal budget of $2.9T you get $25,401. Pretty danged close to the other, eh? Funny, that.
Still think you're getting screwed? Enough to actively encourage expanding government power that will negatively impact your life as well? Hmm...
Slashdot Mirror
..oh wait, that would imply that THIS is news.
capable of displaying false images in the first place was a wise one.
I've had design meetings practically come to blows when similarly asinine suggestions were made in the context of things that by comparison were about as critical as a recipe database. Yes, you would think in "system to positively identify bombs" the flowchart box labeled "automatically and without further inquiry disregard positive image of bomb" would raise a few eyebrows. Geezuz.
..actually, INFPs are more than twice as common as INTJs and ENTJs. Still not very common, though.
k downMBTI.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PopulationBrea
It is sort of silly and amusing how with something as innocuous as these temperment matrices how easy it is to twist the results around like a horoscope and sound golden no matter what.
...most of the ones I've seen "in the wild" are of the b.s. variety. But, by "knowing the answers" and there not being any "correct" ones, well, that's the point. However, there _are_ answers that together will generate a particular result and for the b.s. tests that seem to be in use (probably because they're cheap and short enough that people will put up with them), there are pretty obvious categories of people that they're looking for.
I got tired of one particularly horrible one years ago that was just insultingly obvious--of the "if you know your second cousin twice removed in another state is stealing pencils, do you call the police?" So, I started giving totally "ethical" responses to everything, which oddly enough weren't far from the truth--that is, "no, it's none of my business, let karma sort it out." When I "failed" the test, I confronted the yahoo who "interpreted" the results and asked him point blank, would you really want the psychotic nutjob this test considers "honest?" He agreed and dug up the phone number of the quack who wrote the test.
Honestly, these tests aren't very long and having seen "real" results for whatever temperments, there's no way you could tell a "deceitful" person from an "honest" person if all the answers are the same. A truly deceitful person will fly under the radar because they know the test and know the answers.
Besides, the real problem here is taking something that is actually a relatively neutral analysis and making screening decisions based on the results. In the case of Meyers-Briggs, I'm an INTJ, so how do I compare to a ESFP?
The problem here isn't that the tests are useless, it's that the tests are designed for situations where there is no incentive to deliberately skew the results. If someone's financial livelihood depends on how they "look on paper," it for all reasonable intents invalidates the foundation of the test. Sure, people do the same thing in person, but the problem is relying on these results sight-unseen and giving any credence to the supposedly "objective" results as if it retains any scientific validity.
The only things that are illegal are those that reveal "protected class" status (e.g. race, sex, religion, handicap etc.) -- and even then, it's not illegal per se to ask, it is only illegal to actually screen people out based on that information. Obviously, someone seeking a lawsuit will have a pretty strong case just from the asking, but that only means it is well inadvisable to bring it up, not that it is illegal to do so.
So, those lists of "legal" questions you may see are merely recommendations of what you can ask and not risk litigation. That doesn't mean it is illegal to go beyond those questions, just that you're getting into unsafe territory. You could, say, ask someone "what do you do for fun on Sunday." That's not literally saying "are you a Christian," and the person might be a christian but say "I go to brunch," but they might well say "I sing in the choir at my church" and voila, you could now be accused of discrimination based on religion--even though you never actually asked about it directly. Similarly, you could try to be "safe" and ferret out recreational activity on Saturday but get smacked with "Oh, I go to temple." Voila, now you're potentially an anti-semite. The point of those guidelines is to avoid questions that will give anyone the opportunity to volunteer that information--but that isn't law, it's just good advice.
You will filter out only the truly stupid with these tests and will be needlessly polluting the profiles of very talented people. These things tend to overinflate the value and/or severity of very normal variances in personality. So, you answer "I'd rather go to a museum than an amusement park," "I work best in quiet solitude" and "I enjoy hunting and fishing over canasta" and all of a sudden "candidate X is a sociopathic introvert with severe avoidance issues who can't work with other people and is possibly armed and dangerous."
The true sociopaths that you REALLY want to avoid, however, are generally smart enough to navigate these tests better than the people who write them. You could give them the Meyers-Briggs type/Keirsey temperment desired and they could answer the questions perfectly to hit it on the spot every time.
Goddamnit, these things echo out a single 96-byte number. Period. End of story. That's it.
No one, without linking to the central database, can determine SQUAT from that number.
People are responding that all this crap is on the card and that someone will be able to get a home loan, access their bank records and whatever other assorted "identity theft" issues--and that's a crock. As for why the biometric source _and_ the ID?
How much do you know about identity systems and databases in general? It is MUCH easier to grab an index and do a 1:1 comparison to verify identity than to do a pattern match on a 1:500000000 scale.
Get it now?
No, I did RTFA. I'm not arguing that it will be effective in that capacity. What I'm arguing is that access to that ID number does not give access to anything else. People are saying that all this personal info is just a radio signal away and that you'll be the victim of identity theft, blah blah blah. As for the rest? Meh. Your more likely to be the victim of such number association by random chance than active scanning--because that's ALL the chip sends out. Your cellphone is more dangerous, by a long shot.
Just because I think the chicken-littles are full of it doesn't mean I'm a fanboy for every conceivable implication of the system.
No, it's not in the article, but it IS part of the USA-Visit system and the ID is just the index number to the data they collect. This article is not the definitive source of information on that program. I would suggest you search Google News for the "missing" information.
I'm not arguing the merits of RFID, I'm arguing the asinine absurdity of thinking that access to that ID number is any more dangerous than any of the plethora of similarly [pseudo]-random numbers that are associated with us already.
Nearly everyone carries them and they broadcast a number that just as well identifies you--but even better, you can call it up to make sure the right person is carrying it at the time.
You'd also have to have the same finger prints and iris geometry...and that isn't on the card.
The amount of work you'd have to go through to make this ID useful as a "forgery" is so ridiculous as to make it possible only for those who have access to a government intelligence agency's resources...or a checking account large enough to simulate such.
"What we're putting in the card is possibly nothing but a 96-digit serial number that is random and would do nothing but point back to a database...someone would have to hack into our database at the same time,"
Again, total ignorance marked as "informative."
Sparing the details, there are only 771M possible SSNs currently out there. If you came from, say, Vermont, the odds of guessing your SSN correctly, in order, the first time would only be a 1:2M. It's easier to calculate a valid SSN than to harvest one by any means.
What's NOT easy to do is match the other _necessary_ information to make that number useful and that is no different for this or any other number, whether stored in an RFID chip, printed in a barcode or tatooed on your butt.
That ID is tied to biometric data and corroborating identification -- e.g scans of foreign passport/visas/drivers license etc. etc. Oh, and PHOTOGRAPHS.
All that is on that damned card is an index number. So, sure, you go right ahead and swipe that baby at customs and have a good time with SGT Ufia.
Honestly, do you people really think these things through? Cripes. The ID by itself is totally, 100%, COMPLETELY USELESS to anyone but the person associated with it unless you have madd haxx0r $|<i||z and can alter the central database that actually contains something other than a single number.
...the fact that they don't have the database to match the "ID" in the RFID, perhaps?
I mean, how useful would it be to you to have a list of all the social security numbers of everyone in a baseball stadium if you didn't have any of the names? Hell, you might as well just randomly generate the numbers.
Wouldn't be to terribly risky for me to say that my SSN is 872-46-2392 (it's not) if there's no way for you to get any other identifying information with which to match it as by itself it is totally useless.
The costs of regulation and safety really hinder the poor's ability to own and operate personal aircraft as well, but I doubt you lament the fact that we don't have many old jalopies blithely flying over your house dropping parts and avgas into your pool.
Until IBM started dual-branding them--and then recently with them being completely rebranded--I doubt many knew whether they were coming from China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea or wherever. Now knowing precisely where they are coming from, and more importantly, where _all_ of the money is now going, purchasing behavior is different and the reasons for that are far more complicated than just "don't like foreigners."
...so, what I gather here is that "[Software] Application Service Providers" are out but "Software [Application] Service Providers" are in.
Got it... I will notify Vanity Fair immediately.
When out of cash and desperately trying to get home in the middle of the night, handing over a credit card to a taxi driver armed with carbon paper is truly an unsettling experience. This would be perfect for that.
Americans are pretty well aware that most of their stuff is manufactured in Asia, but there's a different sense to getting things from Taiwan vs. China -- akin to someone deliberately buying Puerto Rican rum instead of Cuban rum. Calling it "unwarranted xenophobia" is more unwarranted than the supposed xenophobia. There are some very serious concerns with China from their labor standards and human rights record to their relations with North Korea and Taiwan.
Some people take those issues very, very seriously and would rather give their money to someone partnering with Taiwan, which indicates it is something more complex than simply being xenophobic. There are very real, very concrete and in many cases extremely valid reasons why people avoid Chinese products when they can.
When people bark that you're making a "political statement" by walking down the street holding hands, one grows quite tired of other people's "politics" and moves simply to ignoring them and getting on with life, but sure as hell not by disappearing into anonymity for your comfort. Don't like it? Don't look.
Iceland is ramping up to use geothermal to split seawater for use in fuel cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1727312
So, they're using hot water to split cold water into fuel that emits warm water. Where's the pollution? Hell, about the worst that could come from it is a catastrophic accident prodicing massive quantities of NaOH, resulting in a bumper season for lutefisk. Talk of toxic waste...
Roughly 135 million people file tax returns. That's about 93% of the workforce.
0 .html
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=96629,0
Now then, as for who isn't paying taxes, well...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02in11hi.xls
28% of all returns have no tax liability, 39% of those under $50k. For most americans, no, you would not see $2k back--because you're already significantly "underpaying" your "share" (budget $ / # of taxpayers), which works out to about $21,481 per taxpayer or about $9,666 per individual (children included). Now, the GDP/capita is $36k, for which an individual is taxed about $5,671. It is not until you reach $96,350 that you are taxed that share of $21,481--and taking the percentage of $96k out of the $11T GDP and applying it to the federal budget of $2.9T you get $25,401. Pretty danged close to the other, eh? Funny, that.
Still think you're getting screwed? Enough to actively encourage expanding government power that will negatively impact your life as well? Hmm...