And another word of warning: with the Systemax purchase of CompUSA, consumers will be exposed to the same sourced inventory, but not realize that it is the same entity as TigerDirect.
So if you're not happy with TigerDirect, don't consider the re-formed CompUSA as an alternative... it isn't.
The real sign of failure is that video games now have even bigger opening weekends - Halo 3, followed hotly by GTA 4, really showed Holywood what an opening weekend could be.
That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Games cost $50-$70 each, while your movie ticket is going to be around $10; there's a larger in-rush of cash during an opening weekend of a game because there's a heavier hit.
If the average movie-going crowd was 5-7 people, then it could be a better comparison.
But, of course, if your machine is behind a firewall, they'll just outlaw having firewall because it impedes their ability to investigate you for crimes. At which point if you need to be insecure enough to ensure that law enforcement can get in and do this, your machine will be hosed within the hour as the actual bad people break through as well.
No, no, no... you have it all wrong. The police simply have to co-opt the Evil bit to differentiate their traffic from the "bad guys," n00b!
Motorola makes some fairly solid hardware; but their cellphone software has been marked by galling suckitude for some time. If they can use android to give their typically solid lower midrange hardware software with higher end features(real browser, email, not sucking, etc.) they could have a very promising product on their hands.
Well, unless the new Co-CEO has a different vision, Motorola has been trying very hard to divest itself of its mobile division. This move would represent their desire to continue to move towards an "application development only" model when it comes to cell phones.
The main danger is stupid folk getting pissed off and wanting to take it out on you.
You're absolutely correct that that is one potential source of dangerous driving!
But, whether or not the person behind you is angry about your driving doesn't change the reality of people generally wanting to drive at least at the speed limit.
It doesn't matter if someone is angry when he's behind someone who is driving 10 mph under the speed limit if most people (angry or not) are going to try to go around that person. My main point was that "going around" someone is more dangerous than driving slowly so you can avoid accidents that require you to have more reaction time.
Even driving 10mph under the speed limit doesn't guarantee that you're going to avoid an accident... someone could just as easily cut you off then slam on the brakes no matter what speed you're cruising.
In fact, irrespective of speed, you'll get more mileage out of ensuring proper following distance than out of driving under the limit (pun intended;) ).
I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously?
Well, for starters, unless there's reason to be driving under the speed limit (snow? rain?), I find it is generally dangerous in the U.S. to drive slower than the posted speed limit. Of course, this will vary by state (some states, few speed... others, you have to "keep up with traffic").
But generally, I've found that driving under the posted speed limit is more dangerous because people will come up on you from behind not expecting you to be a rolling roadblock.
Of course, as your reaction time slows (as one gets older) those drivers tend to slow down to allow themselves more time to react (as in the scenario you've described). But I think on the whole, driving this way creates more opportunities for accidents then it prevents. Right or wrong, driving more slowly is going to piss people off, and they'll tend to want to get around you. The more maneuvers going on around YOUR car (ie, people cutting you off because they are impatient with your speed), the more you'll likely get into accidents.
Ask yourself this: which happens more frequently? A driver pulls out into your lane and you t-bone him because you can't stop in time OR someone cuts you off because they're in a hurry (whether you're driving slowly or not).
I believe the latter happens more frequently and leads to more accidents... so any behavior that "encourages" it will naturally lead to more accidents.
Whether or not he got his personal data back is another question, as anyone knows it is the time invested in generating your own data that is the real value in your PC. I hope he had a backup.
Actually, in a case like this, having a backup isn't going to help. Likely, the police would want to grab that, too. 8/
And to add to this, with the stock they purchase in the treasury, they could always use it to purchase other companies using stock in place of cash.
I agree with you completely... this move signals that the business believes in its future and is taking advantage of being both over-capitalized and a weak market.
If your job pays good money, be a man and provider and sacrifice your happiness so your child can have a better life.
... because that's what his parents wanted for him, right? Why they worked long hard hours just so he could give up on seeking happiness?
We get one life to live. I would counsel striving for balance more than "suck it up." Supporting a family can be a part of that happiness. But sacrificing everything for it won't make you a better parent; it'll make you bitter and that will, ultimately, negatively affect those same people you're trying to support.
You don't have to love what you do (and, honestly, you may never be in a position to do what you love), but it becomes important to be comfortable with that and make it a choice.
Trust me, this is not a good thing for the consumer if such data becomes a standard part of ones medical history and I SELL travel medical insurance.
Actually, this sword cuts both ways. As the testing gets more and more accurate, then it would simply be lifestyle (supposedly) that would determine what diseases, if any, could take their course.
So, if I'm someone that has the "healthy" genes and I don't choose to expose myself to risks associated with poor living habits, why would I even need to buy the insurance?
And, if I'm someone that is predisposed to developing a disease, couldn't I, instead, start saving money for my own treatment from, say, birth instead of giving it to an insurance company "just in case" I develop the disease? If I do develop the diseases I'm likely to develop, then I have a bankroll already set aside to handle it. If I don't, then I have spendable money (or, inheritable money) in my possession... no insurance company is going to give you a refund for not getting sick.
I would expect that this kind of information could result in the end of health insurance as we know it.
And here I have been giving you credit for not being a total tool. How wrong I was...
Actually, you may not have been all that wrong, you're just taking what is being said at face value.
I think most would agree that trying to enforce things like this would be impossible.
And I think most would agree that those in charge of the budgets would most likely not recognize how futile the effort would be.
So, here's a politician proposing to solve an insolvable problem and all he needs is a pant-load of money to do it... hmmmmm...... WHEN it fails (as we would expect it to), experts would defend that it was a fool's errand to start. BUT, in the meanwhile, those with the deep pockets might believe it possible and fund it all the same.
End result? Someone gets rich and famous and with no fear of changing the world at all for the worse.
Put that way, he doesn't strike me as a total tool... just a greedy bastard.;)
I don't think a username is enough of a sample set to determine a typing pattern. Wouldn't you need to copy down a paragraph of text to have any chance of determining patterns in typing style?
The answer is: "Yes, you're right. It isn't enough by itself."
But I think the conclusion most are jumping to is that this would be used as a black-n-white type of authentication; if I don't type at the correct cadence I'll get locked out.
More likely, it would have value in terms of being a first step in a stronger authentication scheme. So, if you don't type with the correct cadence, it has to ask for additional authentication even if you get the password correct.
This stronger auth is being done on many banking sites (although, they're using machine signature, IP address, etc. to identify you as coming from the same location as "last time").
In this respect... maybe.
Even with that said, I think that using stronger pieces of information, like you're always logging in from the same IP, would be better for this use than "how you type."
Presenting users with choices amongst related businesses.
More to your point, what is really the harm in presenting competitors' links when searching a business for products?
For example, I would expect ads for "Circuit City" to show up when I search "Best Buy" about as often as I would expect to see ads for "Best Buy" come up when I search "Circuit City." Wouldn't that have a net canceling effect?
IF a retailer wanted to get up in arms about something it would have to be that this practice would now require a business to purchase advertising from Google so that the above scenario would actually play out.
Even then, that isn't too different from other advertising media: might as well start complaining when competing products air commercials on the same television station.
More likely it is because the West (VERY specifically America) is a litigious society; before any company would introduce autonomous machinery (beyond the most basic that we have today) into the everyday life of Americans, they need to be darn sure that it won't kill/mame/hurt/offend anyone lest they be sued out of existence.
FP had an excellent link to a snowplowing robot. How long do you think that would be in operation before some kid threw himself under it and the place using the robot to clean the parking lot and the manufacturer of the robot got sued?
DVDs gave better quality and convenience than VHS and CDs gave better quality and convenience than analogue tapes.
More to your point: DVD's gave better quality and convenience, too, with convenience being the driving factor.
Remember laser disc with the CLV and CAV variants? Why did DVD kick its butt? While there are differing factors from quality of video and sound to form factor, the biggest one was convenience: you could watch a whole movie on a DVD without needing to get up every 30-60 minutes (depending on CAV/CLV) to flip the disc.
Streaming would kill BluRay just as quickly IFF the infrastructure to do so could be setup because, while people enjoy owning a physical item, the convenience of streaming might be enough to override it.
I think you may have missed the point of the GP post. The point wasn't to block encrypted traffic just because it is encrypted. It would be to do traffic shaping, so that a connection generating dozens or hundreds of simultaneous encrypted connections to different destination IP's might be targeted; it is a traffic pattern would most likely be generated by a P2P program and not by normal internet use by a family.
See the concept of 'fails gracefully' - where if your software assumes one set of conditions, and has problems, it drops down to the earlier, more commonly used conditions.
It is precisely this type of behavior that, when done in the past by Microsoft, was later exploited by malicious attackers.
I'm no fan of them having ipv6 turned on by default when we're still years away from wide-spread adoption, but I don't think having it handle the ipv6/ipv4 issue automatically is a good idea.
To add to what this post is saying (and generally summarize it): you'll need to work your way up and not jump jobs to get into a manager spot.
There are always exceptions, but it boils down to this: if a company is looking to hire a manager from the outside, then it is because they are growing quickly, don't have the talent internally (a fallacy, generally, but one that companies sometimes buy into), or are looking for someone to "solve their problems" because they aren't good at managing themselves.
In ALL of these scenarios, they'll be looking for someone who can hit the ground running. That means they want you to already have experience as a manager.
So, you hit the same issue you had straight out of college: "Everyone wants at least 2 years of experience, but you can't get the 2 years of experience because nobody will hire you."
While you're at your company trying to move up, be not only vocal about your interests, but seek responsibility and do a darn good job with it.
And, of course, seek not to become the irreplaceable cog; cross-training/mentoring is not only a way of avoiding that but also a way of demonstrating skill at developing others... another key component of being a good manager.
If you bought the DVD/song/ebook/whatever, then you should be able to make copies of it for you own personal use.
I agree with this assessment. What I'm talking about is the altruistic/sharing response I think many people feel. It is the response that says, "hey, I really like the song/album/movie... let me make a copy of it for my friend so he can enjoy it too."
There's nothing malicious in that. But, it is what DRM is trying to stop in an uncontrolled way. The problem is that in an effort to stamp out unintended "piracy," corporations have pushed people towards it because, hey, it is easier to download it than it is to try and pull it back off my ipod after visiting ITunes.
But, I digress in my response. My original point was that something IS needed and that being wide-open IS NOT a good idea because of this very thing. If I get a completely unprotected piece of content, I won't think twice about sharing it, and that has nothing to do with piracy or not wanting to pay but in being interested in being a good friend.
I don't really see any reason to keep pursuing copy protection.
I do. In a world where things are black-and-white, you have a point: people will ALWAYS either pay (though they don't have to) or steal (though they don't need to). In that world, you're 100% correct; copy protection doesn't matter because the "payers" would have paid anyway and the "thieves" would have always found a way to steal.
But the world isn't so clear-cut. I think most people fall into a middle ground, neither fully honest nor fully thief (even if that isn't a conscious choice).
Here, a trivial example that I think holds to the broader truth:
Let's say you have an office coffee machine. Next to it, there's a cup where one is supposed to deposit $.25 for each cup that is taken. We're purely on the honor system in this office... there's no monitoring. Some people will always put money in. Some people will never put money in and will in fact, TAKE money out of the cup. And then there's the majority of people who, if they didn't see/know about the cup, might take a cup of coffee thinking it is free.
Copy protection is, fundamentally, supposed to set the bar high enough that one cannot accidentally steal; it has to be a directed effort.
What I disagree with content providers on (and is the pain point for most consumers) is that they're trying to raise the bar SO high in an effort to stamp out most theft that it is "punishing" most users by making fair use extremely inconvenient. In fact, it is having, in some circumstances, the opposite effect: people turn to "piracy" not because they want to steal, but because their needs aren't being met.
In my office example, we're headed away from the shared cup and towards a machine that requires an employee id, credit card, and a pin just to get a cup o' joe.
But, you will admit, that in terms of collecting money for coffee, that works better than a cup with no sign at all.
But here's what's particularly egregious about this plan: nobody over 50 will have to get a Real ID for nearly 10 years! If Real ID is so unbelievably necessary to our national security, how can we allow this segment to not have an ID?
This is easy to answer. The reason you target under 50 is because a very large segment of the population is older than 50. They are the majority needed to get this passed, so... make it appealing to the largest segment that can actually vote it in and "make them feel safer" in the process.
Put another way, if you're 21 years old, what would you care if they increased the minimum driving age to 21? Sure... vote for it, "make the streets safer," and the only group that gets screwed is one in which you're no longer a part.
Slashdot Mirror
And another word of warning: with the Systemax purchase of CompUSA, consumers will be exposed to the same sourced inventory, but not realize that it is the same entity as TigerDirect.
So if you're not happy with TigerDirect, don't consider the re-formed CompUSA as an alternative... it isn't.
The real sign of failure is that video games now have even bigger opening weekends - Halo 3, followed hotly by GTA 4, really showed Holywood what an opening weekend could be.
That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Games cost $50-$70 each, while your movie ticket is going to be around $10; there's a larger in-rush of cash during an opening weekend of a game because there's a heavier hit.
If the average movie-going crowd was 5-7 people, then it could be a better comparison.
But, of course, if your machine is behind a firewall, they'll just outlaw having firewall because it impedes their ability to investigate you for crimes. At which point if you need to be insecure enough to ensure that law enforcement can get in and do this, your machine will be hosed within the hour as the actual bad people break through as well.
No, no, no... you have it all wrong. The police simply have to co-opt the Evil bit to differentiate their traffic from the "bad guys," n00b!
Motorola makes some fairly solid hardware; but their cellphone software has been marked by galling suckitude for some time. If they can use android to give their typically solid lower midrange hardware software with higher end features(real browser, email, not sucking, etc.) they could have a very promising product on their hands.
Well, unless the new Co-CEO has a different vision, Motorola has been trying very hard to divest itself of its mobile division. This move would represent their desire to continue to move towards an "application development only" model when it comes to cell phones.
An IBM developer figured out how to use "make" to start services in parallel (once you have determined the dependencies).
A link to the article is here.
Bear in mind, this is circa 2003. 8)
The main danger is stupid folk getting pissed off and wanting to take it out on you.
;) ).
You're absolutely correct that that is one potential source of dangerous driving!
But, whether or not the person behind you is angry about your driving doesn't change the reality of people generally wanting to drive at least at the speed limit.
It doesn't matter if someone is angry when he's behind someone who is driving 10 mph under the speed limit if most people (angry or not) are going to try to go around that person. My main point was that "going around" someone is more dangerous than driving slowly so you can avoid accidents that require you to have more reaction time.
Even driving 10mph under the speed limit doesn't guarantee that you're going to avoid an accident... someone could just as easily cut you off then slam on the brakes no matter what speed you're cruising.
In fact, irrespective of speed, you'll get more mileage out of ensuring proper following distance than out of driving under the limit (pun intended
I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously?
Well, for starters, unless there's reason to be driving under the speed limit (snow? rain?), I find it is generally dangerous in the U.S. to drive slower than the posted speed limit. Of course, this will vary by state (some states, few speed... others, you have to "keep up with traffic").
But generally, I've found that driving under the posted speed limit is more dangerous because people will come up on you from behind not expecting you to be a rolling roadblock.
Of course, as your reaction time slows (as one gets older) those drivers tend to slow down to allow themselves more time to react (as in the scenario you've described). But I think on the whole, driving this way creates more opportunities for accidents then it prevents. Right or wrong, driving more slowly is going to piss people off, and they'll tend to want to get around you. The more maneuvers going on around YOUR car (ie, people cutting you off because they are impatient with your speed), the more you'll likely get into accidents.
Ask yourself this: which happens more frequently? A driver pulls out into your lane and you t-bone him because you can't stop in time OR someone cuts you off because they're in a hurry (whether you're driving slowly or not).
I believe the latter happens more frequently and leads to more accidents... so any behavior that "encourages" it will naturally lead to more accidents.
Whether or not he got his personal data back is another question, as anyone knows it is the time invested in generating your own data that is the real value in your PC. I hope he had a backup.
Actually, in a case like this, having a backup isn't going to help. Likely, the police would want to grab that, too. 8/
And to add to this, with the stock they purchase in the treasury, they could always use it to purchase other companies using stock in place of cash. I agree with you completely... this move signals that the business believes in its future and is taking advantage of being both over-capitalized and a weak market.
Old computer stuff: Free. Outdated, but worked the last time I used it. Yours if you want it.
There's something that works even better: instead of the word "free" put "$20" on it... in no time, someone will steal it! ;)
... is you do not talk about Freenet.
The second rule of Freenet...
If your job pays good money, be a man and provider and sacrifice your happiness so your child can have a better life.
... because that's what his parents wanted for him, right? Why they worked long hard hours just so he could give up on seeking happiness?
We get one life to live. I would counsel striving for balance more than "suck it up."
Supporting a family can be a part of that happiness. But sacrificing everything for it won't make you a better parent; it'll make you bitter and that will, ultimately, negatively affect those same people you're trying to support.
You don't have to love what you do (and, honestly, you may never be in a position to do what you love), but it becomes important to be comfortable with that and make it a choice.
Trust me, this is not a good thing for the consumer if such data becomes a standard part of ones medical history and I SELL travel medical insurance.
Actually, this sword cuts both ways. As the testing gets more and more accurate, then it would simply be lifestyle (supposedly) that would determine what diseases, if any, could take their course.
So, if I'm someone that has the "healthy" genes and I don't choose to expose myself to risks associated with poor living habits, why would I even need to buy the insurance?
And, if I'm someone that is predisposed to developing a disease, couldn't I, instead, start saving money for my own treatment from, say, birth instead of giving it to an insurance company "just in case" I develop the disease? If I do develop the diseases I'm likely to develop, then I have a bankroll already set aside to handle it. If I don't, then I have spendable money (or, inheritable money) in my possession... no insurance company is going to give you a refund for not getting sick.
I would expect that this kind of information could result in the end of health insurance as we know it.
Actually, you may not have been all that wrong, you're just taking what is being said at face value.
I think most would agree that trying to enforce things like this would be impossible.
And I think most would agree that those in charge of the budgets would most likely not recognize how futile the effort would be.
So, here's a politician proposing to solve an insolvable problem and all he needs is a pant-load of money to do it... hmmmmm......
WHEN it fails (as we would expect it to), experts would defend that it was a fool's errand to start. BUT, in the meanwhile, those with the deep pockets might believe it possible and fund it all the same.
End result? Someone gets rich and famous and with no fear of changing the world at all for the worse.
Put that way, he doesn't strike me as a total tool... just a greedy bastard.
I don't think a username is enough of a sample set to determine a typing pattern. Wouldn't you need to copy down a paragraph of text to have any chance of determining patterns in typing style?
The answer is: "Yes, you're right. It isn't enough by itself."
But I think the conclusion most are jumping to is that this would be used as a black-n-white type of authentication; if I don't type at the correct cadence I'll get locked out.
More likely, it would have value in terms of being a first step in a stronger authentication scheme. So, if you don't type with the correct cadence, it has to ask for additional authentication even if you get the password correct.
This stronger auth is being done on many banking sites (although, they're using machine signature, IP address, etc. to identify you as coming from the same location as "last time").
In this respect... maybe.
Even with that said, I think that using stronger pieces of information, like you're always logging in from the same IP, would be better for this use than "how you type."
Presenting users with choices amongst related businesses.
More to your point, what is really the harm in presenting competitors' links when searching a business for products?
For example, I would expect ads for "Circuit City" to show up when I search "Best Buy" about as often as I would expect to see ads for "Best Buy" come up when I search "Circuit City."
Wouldn't that have a net canceling effect?
IF a retailer wanted to get up in arms about something it would have to be that this practice would now require a business to purchase advertising from Google so that the above scenario would actually play out.
Even then, that isn't too different from other advertising media: might as well start complaining when competing products air commercials on the same television station.
More likely it is because the West (VERY specifically America) is a litigious society; before any company would introduce autonomous machinery (beyond the most basic that we have today) into the everyday life of Americans, they need to be darn sure that it won't kill/mame/hurt/offend anyone lest they be sued out of existence.
FP had an excellent link to a snowplowing robot. How long do you think that would be in operation before some kid threw himself under it and the place using the robot to clean the parking lot and the manufacturer of the robot got sued?
DVDs gave better quality and convenience than VHS and CDs gave better quality and convenience than analogue tapes.
More to your point: DVD's gave better quality and convenience, too, with convenience being the driving factor.
Remember laser disc with the CLV and CAV variants? Why did DVD kick its butt? While there are differing factors from quality of video and sound to form factor, the biggest one was convenience: you could watch a whole movie on a DVD without needing to get up every 30-60 minutes (depending on CAV/CLV) to flip the disc.
Streaming would kill BluRay just as quickly IFF the infrastructure to do so could be setup because, while people enjoy owning a physical item, the convenience of streaming might be enough to override it.
Here's mine: writing decent stories for slashdot.
Ha! That's not valid because it presupposes that the skill ever existed!
Might as well include "hunting unicorns" or "RTFA." 8D
I think you may have missed the point of the GP post.
The point wasn't to block encrypted traffic just because it is encrypted. It would be to do traffic shaping, so that a connection generating dozens or hundreds of simultaneous encrypted connections to different destination IP's might be targeted; it is a traffic pattern would most likely be generated by a P2P program and not by normal internet use by a family.
See the concept of 'fails gracefully' - where if your software assumes one set of conditions, and has problems, it drops down to the earlier, more commonly used conditions.
It is precisely this type of behavior that, when done in the past by Microsoft, was later exploited by malicious attackers.
Case in point.
I'm no fan of them having ipv6 turned on by default when we're still years away from wide-spread adoption, but I don't think having it handle the ipv6/ipv4 issue automatically is a good idea.
To add to what this post is saying (and generally summarize it): you'll need to work your way up and not jump jobs to get into a manager spot.
There are always exceptions, but it boils down to this: if a company is looking to hire a manager from the outside, then it is because they are growing quickly, don't have the talent internally (a fallacy, generally, but one that companies sometimes buy into), or are looking for someone to "solve their problems" because they aren't good at managing themselves.
In ALL of these scenarios, they'll be looking for someone who can hit the ground running. That means they want you to already have experience as a manager.
So, you hit the same issue you had straight out of college: "Everyone wants at least 2 years of experience, but you can't get the 2 years of experience because nobody will hire you."
While you're at your company trying to move up, be not only vocal about your interests, but seek responsibility and do a darn good job with it.
And, of course, seek not to become the irreplaceable cog; cross-training/mentoring is not only a way of avoiding that but also a way of demonstrating skill at developing others... another key component of being a good manager.
If you bought the DVD/song/ebook/whatever, then you should be able to make copies of it for you own personal use.
I agree with this assessment. What I'm talking about is the altruistic/sharing response I think many people feel. It is the response that says, "hey, I really like the song/album/movie... let me make a copy of it for my friend so he can enjoy it too."
There's nothing malicious in that. But, it is what DRM is trying to stop in an uncontrolled way. The problem is that in an effort to stamp out unintended "piracy," corporations have pushed people towards it because, hey, it is easier to download it than it is to try and pull it back off my ipod after visiting ITunes.
But, I digress in my response. My original point was that something IS needed and that being wide-open IS NOT a good idea because of this very thing. If I get a completely unprotected piece of content, I won't think twice about sharing it, and that has nothing to do with piracy or not wanting to pay but in being interested in being a good friend.
I don't really see any reason to keep pursuing copy protection.
I do. In a world where things are black-and-white, you have a point: people will ALWAYS either pay (though they don't have to) or steal (though they don't need to). In that world, you're 100% correct; copy protection doesn't matter because the "payers" would have paid anyway and the "thieves" would have always found a way to steal.
But the world isn't so clear-cut. I think most people fall into a middle ground, neither fully honest nor fully thief (even if that isn't a conscious choice).
Here, a trivial example that I think holds to the broader truth:
Let's say you have an office coffee machine. Next to it, there's a cup where one is supposed to deposit $.25 for each cup that is taken. We're purely on the honor system in this office... there's no monitoring.
Some people will always put money in. Some people will never put money in and will in fact, TAKE money out of the cup. And then there's the majority of people who, if they didn't see/know about the cup, might take a cup of coffee thinking it is free.
Copy protection is, fundamentally, supposed to set the bar high enough that one cannot accidentally steal; it has to be a directed effort.
What I disagree with content providers on (and is the pain point for most consumers) is that they're trying to raise the bar SO high in an effort to stamp out most theft that it is "punishing" most users by making fair use extremely inconvenient. In fact, it is having, in some circumstances, the opposite effect: people turn to "piracy" not because they want to steal, but because their needs aren't being met.
In my office example, we're headed away from the shared cup and towards a machine that requires an employee id, credit card, and a pin just to get a cup o' joe.
But, you will admit, that in terms of collecting money for coffee, that works better than a cup with no sign at all.
But here's what's particularly egregious about this plan: nobody over 50 will have to get a Real ID for nearly 10 years! If Real ID is so unbelievably necessary to our national security, how can we allow this segment to not have an ID?
This is easy to answer. The reason you target under 50 is because a very large segment of the population is older than 50. They are the majority needed to get this passed, so... make it appealing to the largest segment that can actually vote it in and "make them feel safer" in the process.
Put another way, if you're 21 years old, what would you care if they increased the minimum driving age to 21? Sure... vote for it, "make the streets safer," and the only group that gets screwed is one in which you're no longer a part.