Other governments, that may be sued for doing this, are just not advertising their databases.
Very true. With a population of ~22 million, Australia would have to have about the same number (15 million?) digital facial recognition records. Every driver's licence carries a clear photo of the holder.
On a side-topic, bars and pubs are increasingly installing ID scanners as a condition of entry. The 2 reasons they float are (i) so that if there is ever any trouble they can link poor-CCTV footage to a high-quality licence photo (and identity); and (ii) so that if you're banned from one bar/pub you can't enter another.
Of course, the information collected will never be used for any other purpose.
The issue is that it is not some nebulous concept called "government" that is the issue. It is the people that run the government.
Not even that: it's that an overwhelming number people being governed are largely complacent and disinterested.
e.g. here in Australia we whale in anguish at the way injured people are treated in woefully underfunded public hospitals, while the government simultaneously wastes billions upon billions in bad decisions. Decisions that we do nothing to alter.
No: the fault lies squarely with us. You get the government you deserve.
Here in Australia we're regularly reminder to be 'water wise' because we live in such an arid country. (I'm not arguing this point.) Earlier this year we were whacked with higher water rates (Sydney) explicitly because the water board's revenue fell because general water conservation proceeded too well.
And get this: a desalination plant was recently constructed in Sydney which the government is contractually obliged to run for x hours per year. Because of that, they redirect fresh water from dams (which are now, thankfully, relatively full) into the ocean because otherwise they wouldn't need to run the desal machinery.
Now, I can see how each of these individual decisions was arrived at. But I can't help but wonder if some future, more enlightened society will look back and shake their heads at how small we were.
I agree that this is towards the bottom end of importance given other issues we have in society.
However:
1. How the government and companies are behaving in such a "small" area (is violating our privacy small?) while at the same feverishly protecting theirs is a sign of their general attitude.
2. I could accept this issue be abandoned if our governments cost us taxpayers $1 billion / year to run. However our various levels of government cost us many, many, many billions to run each year, so the bastards can and should be mindful of what's happening in health, education, roads, defense... and every other bloody area which we pay to be supported / monitored. We have federal and state privacy commissioners who go to work and draw a decent salary. They should earn their bloody pay!
Is it possible that the media that you're consuming paints such a negative portrait of him?
Putin has reclaimed many of the assets that were pillaged after the fall of the USSR. Assets bought at deeply discounted prices to the detriment of the Russian populace. I'm talking about oil, gas, etc.
I think Putin is being cast as a villain in the West because he's not allowing influential parties to rape Russia. He's standing in their way from making countless billions, and they want him gone. It's as simple as that.
Don't do anything at work that you wouldn't want your bosses seeing. Assume you could be called away from your desktop
Bingo!
You also could be called away to be sacked.. in which case you may not have time to clear personal data. To say nothing of network back-up's of files / Exchange emails.
I've managed to work at companies for years without storing any personal information on my work computers. I will never check email or do banking from a work PC / device. (I'll use personal devices and GSM for connectivity.) Family & friends are never given my work email. At most I'll surf sites like Slashdot on my lunch break, but in those instances I won't log-in to my account.
The point being: I could happily walk away without concern.
Along with parent & many other Slashdotters, I've had to handle workstations of ex-employees and it's frightening what some leave behind.
I've become a big fan of halogen globes in recent years. They apparently have a perfect colour rendering index of 100. (And no mercury!) And where, in my case, traditional incandescents would have blown by now, since using my first incandescent a couple of years back I've never had a single one go.
They're more expensive than the traditional incandescent (about $AUD3.50 each versus $0.50) ($AUD1 ~ $US1) I feel they are my best option. Here in Australia the fed gov banned the import of "inefficient" bulbs, so retailers have since run-out of the traditional incandescent. Sadly, I believe further tightening of regulations in September 2012 may result in these halogen globes been banned as well:(
Suffice it to say I have a decent stockpile of traditional incandescents and halogens...
I'm all for people throwing their vote behind an underdog, if that's who they believe in. The federal political landscape has changed in Australia thanks to people voting for a minor party, the Australian Greens.
Interestingly, a notable portion of the Greens' votes are "protest votes"; people who, out of disgust or frustration, vote for a party other than the 2 majors.
At the next election, I can assure you there will be electorates where some people will vote for the Greens -- which will end up with 2% of the vote -- while the majors will each get about 40%. I do understand your argument that you can decide the outcome by backing one of the majors.
But I do not believe that is the right thing to do. You should vote for who you support.
* when the results come in it's 1 extra vote that may encourage the candidate to run again at the next election * it could be the 1 vote that results in them getting extra public funding * it could be the 1 vote that encourages another voter to support them next time ("Hey, they got n%. They might just win next time.") * more importantly, if just a few thousand of us did that, it can be enough to win the seat (depending on the electorate size) * finally, many, many thousands of us have been doing just that, and the Australian Greens now have 13% of the Australian Senate
there will be no civil war. A modern military can put down it's populace in no time.
How can you say such a thing following a year that saw multiple long-standing heads of state ousted from leadership ???
You're thinking in terms of Occupy Wall Street; a handful of people on the street. (A thousand people? A few thousand? Whatever.)
Now think what would happen if 4 million people marched on Wall Street. Or if 8 million gathered around the White House. For a month.
If no civil war ensued it would be because the government-of-the-day would likely amend its policies in order to appease the masses, so as to hold onto office. However if said government remained obstinate, cf. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc.
With all due respect, then you probably don't "speak Marketing" as well as you think you do. However I believe you wish things were harmonious between the 2 departments, and that's a good sign.
Tell me: when things get hairy between you and Marketing do you find you have to pass the issue up to your manager / someone higher than you? Perhaps you are the "higher power". If not, my advice would be: become that higher position.
When you reach an impasse with Marketing, keep your butt on that seat. Search for a solution; be creative, flexible. They are not the enemy. To do their job they need your participation, and they don't always know what's possible. They're knowledge of technology is a fraction of yours.
Sometimes they ask for a Taj Mahal when in fact they'd be happy with a cubby house... I've had conversations like the below more than once... BUSINESS: we need a website for XYZ by Monday morning. ME: are you sure? You do understand you'll need to supply me with the content. I suspect you'll need at least a week for that. BUSINESS: yeah I will actually.* Can we at least get just a home page with this poster on it? ME: sure, that's trivial. You can have that by late afternoon.
* more often than not they get back to me in 3 weeks, which gives me time to work on the site.
It's ironic that we roll our eyes in superiority when someone from Sales doesn't know how to use pivot tables, and then we turn around and do something that makes him roll his eyes. (Or turn red.)
As a healthy, able-bodied driver I have often noticed vacant spots that are designated for the disabled.
And I thank God that I am a healthy, able-bodied driver who doesn't need to use those spots. I don't mind walking the extra 50m, 100m, 200m,...
For crying out loud, just:
1. imagine the mall / shopping centre didn't provide parking spots for another 50 metres 2. think of the extra walking distance as incidental exercise 3. consider how useful it is for someone who needs to use those spots 4. be thankful you don't need to use those spots
desire to render retribution from prisoners instead of addressing the real underlying issues
I don't think it's either/or... I believe the desire is for both. Theoretically incarceration satisfies multiple desires:
1. deterrent -- incarceration should deter the criminal (and others) from committing crimes 2. remove dangerous people from the streets (protect the public) 3. retribution -- satisfy the victims (or victims' families) desire for revenge (hence eliminate feuds) 4. rehabilitation -- inmates to receive training, counselling,... (there may be others)
I'm not saying the prison system succeeds in satisfying all these objectives, just that there are multiple objectives.
My financial worth is a fraction of a fraction of Warren Buffett's and I would be happy to have overall taxes raised if it would eliminate ills from society.
What disillusions me is seeing a progressive shift of wealth from the bottom of society to the top. This has been a mainstay of my rants for a long time.
Whether your society has a flat tax rate or progressive scales, the 1% will have mechanisms and financial instruments to help them avoid paying their fair share; facilities which the 99% either don't know about or can't afford to exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. With a population of ~22 million, Australia would have to have about the same number (15 million?) digital facial recognition records.
Every driver's licence carries a clear photo of the holder.
On a side-topic, bars and pubs are increasingly installing ID scanners as a condition of entry. The 2 reasons they float are (i) so that if there is ever any trouble they can link poor-CCTV footage to a high-quality licence photo (and identity); and (ii) so that if you're banned from one bar/pub you can't enter another.
Of course, the information collected will never be used for any other purpose.
Suddenly, a mighty roar of laughter erupted from hundreds of boardrooms across hundreds of cities.
Well, some of these companies were recently accused of collaborating in other areas as well.
Not even that: it's that an overwhelming number people being governed are largely complacent and disinterested.
e.g. here in Australia we whale in anguish at the way injured people are treated in woefully underfunded public hospitals, while the government simultaneously wastes billions upon billions in bad decisions. Decisions that we do nothing to alter.
No: the fault lies squarely with us. You get the government you deserve.
Here in Australia we're regularly reminder to be 'water wise' because we live in such an arid country. (I'm not arguing this point.)
Earlier this year we were whacked with higher water rates (Sydney) explicitly because the water board's revenue fell because general water conservation proceeded too well.
And get this: a desalination plant was recently constructed in Sydney which the government is contractually obliged to run for x hours per year. Because of that, they redirect fresh water from dams (which are now, thankfully, relatively full) into the ocean because otherwise they wouldn't need to run the desal machinery.
Now, I can see how each of these individual decisions was arrived at. But I can't help but wonder if some future, more enlightened society will look back and shake their heads at how small we were.
I agree that this is towards the bottom end of importance given other issues we have in society.
However:
1. How the government and companies are behaving in such a "small" area (is violating our privacy small?) while at the same feverishly protecting theirs is a sign of their general attitude.
2. I could accept this issue be abandoned if our governments cost us taxpayers $1 billion / year to run. However our various levels of government cost us many, many, many billions to run each year, so the bastards can and should be mindful of what's happening in health, education, roads, defense ... and every other bloody area which we pay to be supported / monitored. We have federal and state privacy commissioners who go to work and draw a decent salary. They should earn their bloody pay!
Who are you kidding? We'd still be living in a corner of our mum's cave.
Is it possible that the media that you're consuming paints such a negative portrait of him?
Putin has reclaimed many of the assets that were pillaged after the fall of the USSR. Assets bought at deeply discounted prices to the detriment of the Russian populace. I'm talking about oil, gas, etc.
I think Putin is being cast as a villain in the West because he's not allowing influential parties to rape Russia. He's standing in their way from making countless billions, and they want him gone. It's as simple as that.
Whenever biometric security is discussed, I always think of a particular scene in Demolition Man ...
See 1 minute 35 seconds
Bingo!
You also could be called away to be sacked .. in which case you may not have time to clear personal data.
To say nothing of network back-up's of files / Exchange emails.
I've managed to work at companies for years without storing any personal information on my work computers. I will never check email or do banking from a work PC / device. (I'll use personal devices and GSM for connectivity.) Family & friends are never given my work email. At most I'll surf sites like Slashdot on my lunch break, but in those instances I won't log-in to my account.
The point being: I could happily walk away without concern.
Along with parent & many other Slashdotters, I've had to handle workstations of ex-employees and it's frightening what some leave behind.
Hmm, did you send it via Skype?
So much for a fucking democracy. Virtually none of us want this and yet it'll still get passed.
And what the fuck is going on here: the same politicians who want all of our secrets are keeping mum when it comes to themselves:
Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy
No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'
How the FUCK did we end up in this bizarro world?
I've become a big fan of halogen globes in recent years. They apparently have a perfect colour rendering index of 100. (And no mercury!) And where, in my case, traditional incandescents would have blown by now, since using my first incandescent a couple of years back I've never had a single one go.
They're more expensive than the traditional incandescent (about $AUD3.50 each versus $0.50) ($AUD1 ~ $US1) I feel they are my best option. Here in Australia the fed gov banned the import of "inefficient" bulbs, so retailers have since run-out of the traditional incandescent. Sadly, I believe further tightening of regulations in September 2012 may result in these halogen globes been banned as well :(
Suffice it to say I have a decent stockpile of traditional incandescents and halogens ...
I don't think you could call their design flawed: they roamed this planet for about 1/3 billion years.
From the summary:
I agree that a large number of us vote against a candidate/party rather than for a candidate/party.
But I completely disagree with your last statement. (Against voting.)
There is no fate but what we make!
I think you're right: there's definitely something indefinable about him.
The Libs won't win as long as Abbott's party leader. Return Turnbull to party head, or promote Julie Bishop or Hockey, and the Libs have got a chance.
As long as Abbott's leader they've got no chance. Gillard would have to kick a kitten on national television. And even then ...
I'm all for people throwing their vote behind an underdog, if that's who they believe in.
The federal political landscape has changed in Australia thanks to people voting for a minor party, the Australian Greens.
Check out this link showing the Greens' progress over the past 15 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens#2010_election_onward ... then they held 2% ... now they're at 13% of the Senate!
At one point they held no seats
Interestingly, a notable portion of the Greens' votes are "protest votes"; people who, out of disgust or frustration, vote for a party other than the 2 majors.
At the next election, I can assure you there will be electorates where some people will vote for the Greens -- which will end up with 2% of the vote -- while the majors will each get about 40%. I do understand your argument that you can decide the outcome by backing one of the majors.
But I do not believe that is the right thing to do. You should vote for who you support.
* when the results come in it's 1 extra vote that may encourage the candidate to run again at the next election
* it could be the 1 vote that results in them getting extra public funding
* it could be the 1 vote that encourages another voter to support them next time ("Hey, they got n%. They might just win next time.")
* more importantly, if just a few thousand of us did that, it can be enough to win the seat (depending on the electorate size)
* finally, many, many thousands of us have been doing just that, and the Australian Greens now have 13% of the Australian Senate
How can you say such a thing following a year that saw multiple long-standing heads of state ousted from leadership ???
You're thinking in terms of Occupy Wall Street; a handful of people on the street. (A thousand people? A few thousand? Whatever.)
Now think what would happen if 4 million people marched on Wall Street. Or if 8 million gathered around the White House. For a month.
If no civil war ensued it would be because the government-of-the-day would likely amend its policies in order to appease the masses, so as to hold onto office. However if said government remained obstinate, cf. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc.
Yeah, and we know who's ultimately going to foot that bill.
Nope: the Iraqi government has wanted coalition troops out for years.
The withdrawal occurred so that no more casualties occur during Obama's re-election year. And no more embarrassments, either.
If the elections were in another 4 years then the troops would still be there for another 3.
With all due respect, then you probably don't "speak Marketing" as well as you think you do. However I believe you wish things were harmonious between the 2 departments, and that's a good sign.
Tell me:
when things get hairy between you and Marketing do you find you have to pass the issue up to your manager / someone higher than you?
Perhaps you are the "higher power". If not, my advice would be: become that higher position.
When you reach an impasse with Marketing, keep your butt on that seat. Search for a solution; be creative, flexible.
They are not the enemy. To do their job they need your participation, and they don't always know what's possible. They're knowledge of technology is a fraction of yours.
Sometimes they ask for a Taj Mahal when in fact they'd be happy with a cubby house ... I've had conversations like the below more than once ...
BUSINESS: we need a website for XYZ by Monday morning.
ME: are you sure? You do understand you'll need to supply me with the content. I suspect you'll need at least a week for that.
BUSINESS: yeah I will actually.* Can we at least get just a home page with this poster on it?
ME: sure, that's trivial. You can have that by late afternoon.
* more often than not they get back to me in 3 weeks, which gives me time to work on the site.
What a great example.
It's ironic that we roll our eyes in superiority when someone from Sales doesn't know how to use pivot tables, and then we turn around and do something that makes him roll his eyes. (Or turn red.)
As a healthy, able-bodied driver I have often noticed vacant spots that are designated for the disabled.
And I thank God that I am a healthy, able-bodied driver who doesn't need to use those spots. I don't mind walking the extra 50m, 100m, 200m, ...
For crying out loud, just:
1. imagine the mall / shopping centre didn't provide parking spots for another 50 metres
2. think of the extra walking distance as incidental exercise
3. consider how useful it is for someone who needs to use those spots
4. be thankful you don't need to use those spots
Just to clarify your opening sentence:
I don't think it's either/or ... I believe the desire is for both.
Theoretically incarceration satisfies multiple desires:
1. deterrent -- incarceration should deter the criminal (and others) from committing crimes ...
2. remove dangerous people from the streets (protect the public)
3. retribution -- satisfy the victims (or victims' families) desire for revenge (hence eliminate feuds)
4. rehabilitation -- inmates to receive training, counselling,
(there may be others)
I'm not saying the prison system succeeds in satisfying all these objectives, just that there are multiple objectives.
That's not fair.
My financial worth is a fraction of a fraction of Warren Buffett's and I would be happy to have overall taxes raised if it would eliminate ills from society.
What disillusions me is seeing a progressive shift of wealth from the bottom of society to the top. This has been a mainstay of my rants for a long time.
Whether your society has a flat tax rate or progressive scales, the 1% will have mechanisms and financial instruments to help them avoid paying their fair share; facilities which the 99% either don't know about or can't afford to exploit.