It's sad, and I wonder (a) how we got to this situations and (b) how to get out of it.
A). How we got into it is similar to how we got scared of many things, bad stuff happened to a select few, people realized how dangerous what you were doing really was, and reacted under the assumption that it was better to be safe than sorry.
B). How we get out is simple, we don't be the irrepsonsible parents yours were and put our children out there in dangerous situations, but we also learn that sticking them into a bubble and locking them up for 18 years isn't healthy either.
Once we learn to stop over reacting to the danger, the responsible solution will occur to us.
And I do apologize if you don't feel your parents weren't irresponsible. I'm sure it didn't occur to them at the time that they were either. But unless you and your parents lived on a desert island and the only other life on that island were your family and your friends, it was a horribly irresponsible thing to do. Just because you never had to pay the consequences of that doesn't mean some other poor kid out there doing the same thing didn't.
The solution isn't to overreact to the danger as we currently do, but also it certainly isn't to pretend there is none. Kids get seriously hurt and die all the time all around the world because they were unsupervised and put themselves in dangerous situations that they were not prepared or capable of handling.
1. Because legally you can't tie an SSN in such a manner, the only legal purpose for government requesting an SSN is for tax and SS purposes. The only time the government can touch your SSN is when the act can be construed as touching one of those items somehow. This is how the states were forced to change from providing licenses with DL#s based on your SSN to 'random' DL#s.
2. Because participating in a census is voluntary and thus any numbers you garnered in a digital census would be skewed to unfairly over represent those with easy access to a computer, unless you simply used the computer as the 'alternative' to the forms you currently fill out and send in.
3. Because not everyone has an SSN.
4. Because a census wants to capture everyone, including those without SSNs or computers.
You may be interested in studying polyphasic sleep. The idea being to break up your day with more wake/nap cycles than just the one you currently have. Done correctly you gain quite a bit of 'lost time' Though in terms of 'paying your dues' it might be a bit difficult to work out since a lot of that lost time is during the period when the rest of us are sleeping.
Here is the blog of someone who tried it out and found it worked rather well outside of the matching their time to the rest of the world's time issue.
Every morning I start off by opening about 80-90 tabs for my morning reading and then hop into the shower while waiting for them to load. Once I've read the morning news/comics, I restart the browser and do generalized stuff.
I'm using FF 2, XP, but normally my virtual memory hangs around 0.5-1.5 gig. Depending on if I've done much in any sites like Google Reader.
Outside the morning crush, I normally have 10-20 tabs open as I'll open links in articles and queue them up for browsing after I finish reading.
It's nothing like a patent troll. They provided software and said you could use it in your product if you follow a simple set of rules. The people making the product didn't follow the rules, and didn't bother to correct this till they were sued.
A patent troll doesn't provide squat. They just wait for someone to come up with an idea the troll might have already patented and then attempts to extort that person after they've managed to implement the idea and make it profitable.
This isn't even apples and oranges. It's apples and school bus yellow race cars.
An unenforceable law, in my eyes, is one which is almost universially broken as a matter of the course of life. For relevant current laws, see most traffic regulations. These are outwardly passed to provide a measure of saftey but routinely are selectively enforced as a revenue stream due to the inability of the government to provide sufficent manpower to enforce the rules universially.
The fact that the law itself would be dead in the water as being in conflict with the Bill of Rights is a concern, but not the primary one. That issue is readily resolveable through the normal legal processes. Our legal system has, to my satisfaction at least, shown the ability to police itself that far at least.
The issue that lawmakers put forward suggested laws which (regarless of their constitutionality) have no real means of universal enforcement is of more concern because that is directly what Ayn's quote is warning of. Passing of laws which, for whatever the intent was, work to make all men criminals.
The point of her quote isn't that if everyone breaks the law, everyone goes to jail. It's that if everyone breaks the law, the government will selectively arrest just those who cause a problem for 'them'.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
-Ayn Rand
...
Is that seriously the main flaw you find with this law?
to the idea of a transparent society than take from it.
I don't particularly like Brin's work, but it's on a personal style level rather than an ideological level. When I read his stuff, I come away feeling like I've been talked down to by a pretentious twit. I don't even think, if I met him in person, that he is like that. It's just that his style of writing rubs me that way.
But, what I've gleaned from standing on the edges and watching others talk about his work is that the idea Brin puts forward in the Transparent Society is that eventually technology will render the idea of privacy a dream. And that at that point, we will have the choice between the illusion of privacy by allowing only the "authorities" to watch our every move, or the reality of the new world by allowing everyone to watch anyone. My previous comment history can probably tell you which way I lean in this discussion.
However, Bruce's argument seems to be purely engaging in pointing out the illusion of privacy we already have rather than actually providing counterpoint to the solution proffered by Brin.
In the example of the police officer that Bruce provides, is not this exactly what Brin posits will happen if we insist in maintaining the illusion? The reason the exchange of ID's is inequitable is purely because the officer has access to databases which you have no equivalent access to. It would seem to me, this is exactly the problem Brin outlines.
If instead, when the officer goes to check your ID against the database, you also are checking their ID (pulling up their employment 'jacket' and cross-referencing their information against a civil liberties watchdog database) then the balance of power returns. You know if he's a cop with a history of bad arrests and he knows if you are a citizen with a habit of blowing away people for pulling them over on a traffic stop.
The issue that I feel Bruce is presenting is less "a transparent society can't work" but "we are so far away from being able to have one I think it's a pie in the sky dream". And in that, I unfortunately agree. I am pessimistic by nature, and whenever I look at the people in America who I know fully well to be rational, intelligent human being act more and more like scared sheeple, the less and less am able to hold out for the idea that the pendulum will someday swing back this way.
You obviously aren't a member of the Illuminati or you'd know of the secret live update version of Google Street. In fact, this version is so powerful, it's not limited to streets.
If he was able to remove completely the number pad and simply trick the main board into thinking the correct combination had been entered, it's a fairly safe bet that snipping off the numberpad and using the leads that used to go to it would work just as well. Your epoxy solution would only cover part of it. Plus, IF the data is being storied unencrypted and the only issue is physical access, eventually epoxy can be removed. Once that happens, you are pwnt.
My friend, I fear you do not see the point. Have we not said that hardware based encryption is far superior to software based encryption? Does this chart tell you nothing?
Indeed, our thumb drives utilize gold connectors to ensure the fidelity and privacy of your porn collection. Other thumb drives use cheap, base metals. These are highly susceptible to corruption and thus are insecure. Don't take the risk and go cheap; after all, do you really want the whole world to see your midget clown photo sets?
If you try to log into the site using a domain already setup under Google Apps for Domains, you'll receive an error indicating that you have to speak to your site Admin to get access.
This can be a bit confusing, because intially if you log into the dashboard for your domain, Google Sites isn't automaticly added to your services and thus you might do as I did and thrash around a bit trying to figure out how to setup acccess.
It's actually fairly easy, use the "Add Services" button on your Dashboard and Google Sites should be one of the options listed (I'm using the "Next Gen Dashboard, so if you are using the old gen version which doesn't list beta services it might not show). Add the service, and optionally point it to sites.yourdomain.com or leave it at the default google.com address.
I'm waiting for the DNS to refresh for my own domain, but this looks like something that will be fun to play with.
....
And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the shrink wherever you are,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant."
And walk out.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both ******* and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
Better suggestion, don't bother stripping anything. This isn't the DOS age. Have her pick a sentence that she'll remember and use THAT as the password. Unless she's the next Tolstoy, she's not going to come anywhere near the limit and since brute force password hacking becomes exponentially harder the longer the password, a sentence is a perfectly strong password for these scenarios.
Just reminder her not to sound it out while typing it.
The name orginated with Inforworld, Stephens was able to take it with him when he left. He can use it outside the straight magzine IT journalist world, he outside of it.
The writer of the article we are discussing is the current 'ghost writer' at Infoworld. The 'famous' Cringely is the one on PBS.
They all use the same name, because it is/was a pen name for the author of a specific column in Infoworld.
I have, for a long time, advocated the idea that if the concept of privacy was done away with, a good deal of the angst in the world could be done away with. It's a permutation of the 80/20 rule. 80% of what everyone fears anyone else could ever learn about them is dreck they share with the majority. And the remaining 20% would be far less shameful when it comes to light that everyone has their own personal 20% to deal with.
All of the power of shame is based in the belief that somehow, you are the only one. And most of the power of secrets is based in the idea that you have more power derived from them the fewer in the loop.
However, you present a false dichotomy. You make a fair representation for legal entities to have no right to privacy, but then make the spurious leap that it would then follow that no one should have privacy. Regardless of my agreement of that view, there are numerous shades of grey between a corporation/government group and an individual.
Slashdot Mirror
A). How we got into it is similar to how we got scared of many things, bad stuff happened to a select few, people realized how dangerous what you were doing really was, and reacted under the assumption that it was better to be safe than sorry.
B). How we get out is simple, we don't be the irrepsonsible parents yours were and put our children out there in dangerous situations, but we also learn that sticking them into a bubble and locking them up for 18 years isn't healthy either.
Once we learn to stop over reacting to the danger, the responsible solution will occur to us.
And I do apologize if you don't feel your parents weren't irresponsible. I'm sure it didn't occur to them at the time that they were either. But unless you and your parents lived on a desert island and the only other life on that island were your family and your friends, it was a horribly irresponsible thing to do. Just because you never had to pay the consequences of that doesn't mean some other poor kid out there doing the same thing didn't.
The solution isn't to overreact to the danger as we currently do, but also it certainly isn't to pretend there is none. Kids get seriously hurt and die all the time all around the world because they were unsupervised and put themselves in dangerous situations that they were not prepared or capable of handling.
1. Because legally you can't tie an SSN in such a manner, the only legal purpose for government requesting an SSN is for tax and SS purposes. The only time the government can touch your SSN is when the act can be construed as touching one of those items somehow. This is how the states were forced to change from providing licenses with DL#s based on your SSN to 'random' DL#s.
2. Because participating in a census is voluntary and thus any numbers you garnered in a digital census would be skewed to unfairly over represent those with easy access to a computer, unless you simply used the computer as the 'alternative' to the forms you currently fill out and send in.
3. Because not everyone has an SSN.
4. Because a census wants to capture everyone, including those without SSNs or computers.
You laugh but....
*sarcasm on*
Wow, I never knew so many people lived at the public pool....
And no one lives downtown apparently...
*sarcasm off*
How exactly would you be able to trust any sort of information you received via a volunteer internet based collection?
Here is the blog of someone who tried it out and found it worked rather well outside of the matching their time to the rest of the world's time issue.
Every morning I start off by opening about 80-90 tabs for my morning reading and then hop into the shower while waiting for them to load. Once I've read the morning news/comics, I restart the browser and do generalized stuff.
I'm using FF 2, XP, but normally my virtual memory hangs around 0.5-1.5 gig. Depending on if I've done much in any sites like Google Reader.
Outside the morning crush, I normally have 10-20 tabs open as I'll open links in articles and queue them up for browsing after I finish reading.
Umm...
It's nothing like a patent troll. They provided software and said you could use it in your product if you follow a simple set of rules. The people making the product didn't follow the rules, and didn't bother to correct this till they were sued.
A patent troll doesn't provide squat. They just wait for someone to come up with an idea the troll might have already patented and then attempts to extort that person after they've managed to implement the idea and make it profitable.
This isn't even apples and oranges. It's apples and school bus yellow race cars.
An unenforceable law, in my eyes, is one which is almost universially broken as a matter of the course of life. For relevant current laws, see most traffic regulations. These are outwardly passed to provide a measure of saftey but routinely are selectively enforced as a revenue stream due to the inability of the government to provide sufficent manpower to enforce the rules universially.
The fact that the law itself would be dead in the water as being in conflict with the Bill of Rights is a concern, but not the primary one. That issue is readily resolveable through the normal legal processes. Our legal system has, to my satisfaction at least, shown the ability to police itself that far at least.
The issue that lawmakers put forward suggested laws which (regarless of their constitutionality) have no real means of universal enforcement is of more concern because that is directly what Ayn's quote is warning of. Passing of laws which, for whatever the intent was, work to make all men criminals.
The point of her quote isn't that if everyone breaks the law, everyone goes to jail. It's that if everyone breaks the law, the government will selectively arrest just those who cause a problem for 'them'.
two actually. The one you did not list when they are sufficently fearful.
-Ayn Rand
...
Is that seriously the main flaw you find with this law?Brian Gordon
Yes.
I don't particularly like Brin's work, but it's on a personal style level rather than an ideological level. When I read his stuff, I come away feeling like I've been talked down to by a pretentious twit. I don't even think, if I met him in person, that he is like that. It's just that his style of writing rubs me that way.
But, what I've gleaned from standing on the edges and watching others talk about his work is that the idea Brin puts forward in the Transparent Society is that eventually technology will render the idea of privacy a dream. And that at that point, we will have the choice between the illusion of privacy by allowing only the "authorities" to watch our every move, or the reality of the new world by allowing everyone to watch anyone. My previous comment history can probably tell you which way I lean in this discussion.
However, Bruce's argument seems to be purely engaging in pointing out the illusion of privacy we already have rather than actually providing counterpoint to the solution proffered by Brin.
In the example of the police officer that Bruce provides, is not this exactly what Brin posits will happen if we insist in maintaining the illusion? The reason the exchange of ID's is inequitable is purely because the officer has access to databases which you have no equivalent access to. It would seem to me, this is exactly the problem Brin outlines.
If instead, when the officer goes to check your ID against the database, you also are checking their ID (pulling up their employment 'jacket' and cross-referencing their information against a civil liberties watchdog database) then the balance of power returns. You know if he's a cop with a history of bad arrests and he knows if you are a citizen with a habit of blowing away people for pulling them over on a traffic stop.
The issue that I feel Bruce is presenting is less "a transparent society can't work" but "we are so far away from being able to have one I think it's a pie in the sky dream". And in that, I unfortunately agree. I am pessimistic by nature, and whenever I look at the people in America who I know fully well to be rational, intelligent human being act more and more like scared sheeple, the less and less am able to hold out for the idea that the pendulum will someday swing back this way.
Well, it's a little short to be a Stormtrooper.
You obviously aren't a member of the Illuminati or you'd know of the secret live update version of Google Street. In fact, this version is so powerful, it's not limited to streets.
I'm watching you right now.
JESUS! Will you put a shirt on that back?
If he was able to remove completely the number pad and simply trick the main board into thinking the correct combination had been entered, it's a fairly safe bet that snipping off the numberpad and using the leads that used to go to it would work just as well. Your epoxy solution would only cover part of it. Plus, IF the data is being storied unencrypted and the only issue is physical access, eventually epoxy can be removed. Once that happens, you are pwnt.
My friend, I fear you do not see the point. Have we not said that hardware based encryption is far superior to software based encryption? Does this chart tell you nothing?
Indeed, our thumb drives utilize gold connectors to ensure the fidelity and privacy of your porn collection. Other thumb drives use cheap, base metals. These are highly susceptible to corruption and thus are insecure. Don't take the risk and go cheap; after all, do you really want the whole world to see your midget clown photo sets?
By the time I read the article, (4:13pm CST) the decision had already been handed down, the order has been rescinded.
Major, General, Lord? Phew, I imagine you have alota fun with that one.
If you try to log into the site using a domain already setup under Google Apps for Domains, you'll receive an error indicating that you have to speak to your site Admin to get access.
This can be a bit confusing, because intially if you log into the dashboard for your domain, Google Sites isn't automaticly added to your services and thus you might do as I did and thrash around a bit trying to figure out how to setup acccess.
It's actually fairly easy, use the "Add Services" button on your Dashboard and Google Sites should be one of the options listed (I'm using the "Next Gen Dashboard, so if you are using the old gen version which doesn't list beta services it might not show). Add the service, and optionally point it to sites.yourdomain.com or leave it at the default google.com address.
I'm waiting for the DNS to refresh for my own domain, but this looks like something that will be fun to play with.
Alice's Restaurant Massacree by Arlo Guthrie
As the gp has demonstrated, you obviously can. It's just you come off as an ass doing it and don't actually achieve the desired results*.
* Assuming the desired results are anything but looking like an ass.
Better suggestion, don't bother stripping anything. This isn't the DOS age. Have her pick a sentence that she'll remember and use THAT as the password. Unless she's the next Tolstoy, she's not going to come anywhere near the limit and since brute force password hacking becomes exponentially harder the longer the password, a sentence is a perfectly strong password for these scenarios.
Just reminder her not to sound it out while typing it.
I call shenanigans! Those are obviously weather balloons! *ducks*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely
As the GP said, yes there are more than one.
The name orginated with Inforworld, Stephens was able to take it with him when he left. He can use it outside the straight magzine IT journalist world, he outside of it.
The writer of the article we are discussing is the current 'ghost writer' at Infoworld. The 'famous' Cringely is the one on PBS.
They all use the same name, because it is/was a pen name for the author of a specific column in Infoworld.
I have, for a long time, advocated the idea that if the concept of privacy was done away with, a good deal of the angst in the world could be done away with. It's a permutation of the 80/20 rule. 80% of what everyone fears anyone else could ever learn about them is dreck they share with the majority. And the remaining 20% would be far less shameful when it comes to light that everyone has their own personal 20% to deal with.
All of the power of shame is based in the belief that somehow, you are the only one. And most of the power of secrets is based in the idea that you have more power derived from them the fewer in the loop.
However, you present a false dichotomy. You make a fair representation for legal entities to have no right to privacy, but then make the spurious leap that it would then follow that no one should have privacy. Regardless of my agreement of that view, there are numerous shades of grey between a corporation/government group and an individual.