I've never seen such pessimistic claims for iris recognition. With a false accept rate of 1/1000 to 1/10000, you can achieve a false accept rate of pretty much zero. I respect Simon Davies, but I'm not sure he has his facts right here.
Actually the only place RTFA gives a rate of false positives is where it says "Good quality scans result in a 'false match' less than one time per one hundred billion (this system has been used with excellent results in the United Arab Emirates)." I'd say that's pretty good accuracy and makes tracking citizens, er suspects and terrorists, pretty easy with enough scanners.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a variety of court decisions give various powers to the federal government while others are reserved to the states or to the individual.
There is neither specification in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights for anything like the Real ID. States have any rights of that nature. There also is no precedent to give the Federal government anything like a Real ID authority.
So a constitutional amendment would be required to enact Real ID. That won't happen. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will throw out the federal government's attempts to enforce a Real ID and will affirm the various states' exclusive rights.
Only if this were true, however the USSC has already shown it will allow the feds to do whatever it wants so long as the government can twist it around and say it's all about interstate commerce. The feds used the interstate commerce clause when arguing before the USSC in the GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al case dealing with medical marijuana in CA and the USSC Justices agreed.
you allude to something being lost with a national id. what exactly, in concrete terms, do you lose? you've listed some nebulous conceptual losses, but you haven't actually put your finger on a real threat to you. just phantoms and ghosts
You and those like you allude to the loss of something when there isn't a national id, security. Prove to me a national id will make people, not the government but people, safer. Otherwise all I can do about a call for a national id is to call it phamtoms and ghosts, or smoke and mirrors. Those who call for a national id are the ones creating paranoia.
I fear government more than terrorists. It's government that is the true terrorists.
50 different fractious models versus one model with more resources is obviously superior in terms of security, and has no more privacy concerns than the 50 different little models
Prove it!
in other words, you don't lose anything in terms of privacy, you only gain more security
Prove it!
you talk about an excuse to make a national id, with no gain in security. but you DO gain security, and you lose no more privacy
Prove it!
tell me: do people in washington dc want a national id because it occurs to them its less bureacracy
It's more bureacracy not less. You have not only the state bureacracy but also a federal bureacracy.
You, and others, go on about how a national id will increase peoples's security but not once have I seen either proof or a cogent argument that supports this. Fact is, with a national id there is one point of failure and if it fails everyone's put at risk.
i understand privacy concerns and what they mean. but what i don't understand is if someone with privacy concerns were to grant that a state id is acceptable, why a national id is somehow any different or more onerus to privacy concerns. a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id
Privacy is an issue with a national id however such a thing actually affects state rights more. The Real ID act mandates states use one system when the USA Constitution gives no power to create a national id. A second problem is that this creates a bureaucratic boondongle the states have to pay for, the feds certainly aren't paying for it.
however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models
I have yet to see a cogent argument a national id will increase security.
its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government
Because people have more control over thier state government than they do over the federral government it is individuals against big government.
Job background checks currently only check against the database in the current state I reserve the right to commit a crime and run away to another state!
This happened to me, I was a victim of someone who moved to another state because the state he lived in issued an arrest warrant with his name on it. I was in college when I was riding my bike after class and was hit by a moving van. To make a long story short, I lived in Florida and the driver had moved from Mass because Mass. had put out a warrant for his arrest. He had caused two accidents there because he was diabetic and didn't take care of his diabetes as well as was hospitalized twice for the same reason.
However just because these happen it does not mean we need the feds to mandate or require a national ID.
Explain to me why a national ID surrenders more privacy than a state ID. It is not as though the federal government doesn't already have access to all 50 states' ID systems. What is the inherent harm in replacing 50 different databases with one database?
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is if the federal government has the power to create and mandate the use of a national ID. Since the USA Constitution says nothing about one the federal government does not have that power.
I find it very interesting how the government convinced millions of very independent Americans to be tracked in the first place. Social Security, aka 'free' money.
Because of the Great Depression many people accepted Franklin Roosevelt's SS. Not all did though and took him to the USSC, however they lost becuase Roosevelt was able to pack the Supreme Court with SC Justices that supported him They ruled he could do it.
therefore, i'll say it again: 50 different fractious differently implemented, differently standardized, but excellent, state models is inferior to one poor national model in efficiency
Sam's USED TO allow credit cards. Then they stopped. Then they said you could use Discover (or it might have been a Sam's branded Discover). Now they are accepting Master Card again, but not Visa. I have none of these. I'd rather use cash, anyway.
Ump, as I haven't been to Sam's in more than a year I'll have to check on this. As for using cash, I prefer to use cash myself but I don't particularly like carrying around a lot of it.
the region known as texas, or california... they are subsets of the region i'm in
i am an american first, a new yorker a distant second
I am a living being first, earthling next, and human third. Regionally, though I don't live there now, I am a Floridian then an American.
is illegal mexican immigration only a problem for texas?
The only reason so called illegal immigrants are a national problem is because the federal government made it a problem at the behest of special interests. Throughout the history of the USA there have been those who sought to limit or prevent certain peoples from emmigrating to the USA. Benjamin Franklin wanted to bar Germans from coming to and settling in the USA. During the 1850s the Know Nothings wanted to bar Irish Catholics from the USA. Then there was the Chinese Exclusion Act barring Chinese. Now it's Mexicans and other Latin Americans who are being targetted.
If you want to stop "illegal Immigrants" from Mexico or other Latin American countries perhaps you should first ask why they are willing to risk live and limb to immigrate to the USA. A big part of why is that because of NAFTA US agribusinesses, with massive US government subsidies, are able to flood Mexican markets with food cheaper than what it cost a Mexican farmer to grow food on his or her farm. This drives farmers off their land and into Mexican cities or north. More former farmers in the cities pushs more of those already on the cities north as well. There they try to cross the border. Stop the government from handing out billions of dollars to big agribusiness and you will see the number of "illegals" trying to get into the US drop.
So, people freak out whenever the feds do something they don't like, but they haven't the slightest clue what anyone in their state government is up to, which rather makes the states the more dangerous beasts, since your state is not just your protection from the federal government--it is also the colluding executor of its will.
Actually most politics is local not national. People have more control, and exercise it, at the local level than they have at the national level. Don't believe it? Check with you local city and county governments. A group of people can have a more effective say in these than they can at the state or national level. When Alexis de Tocqueville travelled the USA in the 1820s he was amazed to see just how well democracy worked at the local level and wrote the book Democracy in America describing what he saw.
Think again. Are you suggesting that the various celebrities actually give permission to the tabloids to publish the various paparazzi photos that are taken of them?
You brought up something I left out, since though these tabloids, rags, count as news and permission isn't needed for news or editorial purposes. We had a discussion on this in a photography class I took in college. In an ironic twist of fate a similar case came up as we were talking about legal aspects of photography. In the case a photographer in New Orleans had taken some photos of some bare breasted women during Mardi Gras. Some of them found their photo on the web and filed a lawsuit against the photographer. Because the photographer didn't make money off the photos and they were taken in a public space the judge ruled women's right to privacy wasn't violated.
This law is more than likely saving several thousand kids per year, at the cost of what? Nobody under the age of 21 has any more "freedom" to drink alcohol than they have "freedom" to smoke crack or drive without a license. There are plenty of laws that restrict all sorts of things; just because you want to do those things doesn't make them inalienable rights, and there is no guarantee in any of our founding documents that says anything different.
You've got it backwards. There is nothing in the founding documents, especially in the USA Constitution, giving power to the feds to regulate alcohol. And since the Constitution is a limit on government what it says nothing about the feds have no power to do. The Constitution says what the federal government can do, everything else is left to the people or to the states.
But a 3 year increase to the drinking age has helped dramatically reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths while just forcing you to wait a little bit longer to drink legally.
As far as I'm concerned this is BS. What needs to be done is not to raise the drinking age but is to hold those responsible for what they do while drinking, or anything else that influences them. Growing up my mother occassionally gave me somethig to drink, usually beer but also screwdrivers and other mixed drinks, yet I have not turned into a drunk or caused an accident while intoxicated. Actually I hate getting drunk. When drinking alcohol as soon as I start getting a buzz, which hasn't happened in more than 10 ten years, I stop drinking alcohol.
Many years ago I spent tyme in Germany and while there I saw how parents could order an alcoholic drink to their children while eating out. I was kind of shocked to see this, my mother did the same for me though she had to hide it. Yet Germany doesn't have a higher rate of drunken driving than the US has, despite having a lower blood alcohol content for drunken driving and higher alcohol content in beer than the US has. They deal with it effectively, when napped and found guilty of drunken driving there's a good change you'll spend tyme in gaol. You loose your license for several years then to get a new one you have to pay a high fee.
Unfortunately when they return a movie that won't play on thier computer, people will find out they can't get a refund. Once the media container is opened all they can do is exchange it.
Unfortunately? Fortunately is more like it. Fortunate for those of us who love freedom, that is.
If you look at my post history you can see I love and value freedom, yet I still beleive it's unfortunate I can't get a refund once I open the wrapping of a movie. I have had to return movies more than once because the disk was bad. And no, I didn't try to play the movie on my computer, I have a stand alone dvd player but no dvd drive installed in any computer. I even had to exchange the media for one movie twice. I have several disks that won't play at all but I can't get a refund and I should be able to, when I buy something I expect it to work and if it doesn't I should be able to get a refund. Otherwise they're, the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer are ripping me off selling me defective merchandize. That is theft. Would you not return a PC if after buying it it didn't work?
I don't particularly want to see what kind of a constitution would be written if we started over today.
If a new Constitution was written today for the USA I'm affraid it would end up like the failed EU Constitution, and be several hundred pages. That's not exactly a limited government. Anything over one or two pages is too much. Actually I'd like to see some amendments repealed. Starting with the Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"
Yeap, Alexis was amazed at how much control of government the cities and towns had and feared they'd loose it when he traavelled the USA. Sometimes I want to buy cases and cases of his "Democracy in America" to hand to people so they'd know what democracy means. Thomas Jefferson thought pretty much the same, that's why he suggested there should be a revolution every 20 years.
Surely there's a connection between credit rating to poverty and poverty to crime?
Recently a study was done using GIS for an analysis of crime in New York. The area, buroughs, of NYC that had the highest rate of people in prison also had the lowest per capita income and got the lowest government assistance.
After getting really pissed off about it, the next time someone asked my SS number (a membership at Sam's club), they refused to allow me to use a credit card (not theirs, just a plain old Visa or Mastercard), I had to use cash. I said "fine."
No Sam's I've been in accept any credit card with the exception of I believe it's the Discover card. I can't even use my visa debit card. If it weren't for the fact that the Sam's I go to had an atm from my bank I'd have to carry cash there. Unfortunately Costco is the same where I live.
Not that I disagree with you but I'm always interested...How would you suggest that Microsoft protect its IP and stop *widespread* piracy of their product?
MS got so big partially from piracy, if they didn't want people stealing their IP then they should of taken measures to start with to prevent piracy. You don't use your bed as a toilet. Also if their business model isn't working they need to change their business model, and they started doing that using web based apps to sell services instead of selling software. When talking about protecting IP, if it were so important to to take the measure MS does then how is it other software companies, like Borland, CA, and Oracle, are able to stay in business without these measures? Now I'm not saying MS, or anyone else, can't or shouldn't take steps to stop piracy I just don't believe my OS should constantly phone home. When I install, or in the case of it being preinstalled when I get a computer, when I reinstall the OS I have to enter a key to use it. I don't mind this or maybe even having to activate it once, but I do mind if MY computer "phones home" or if I have to reactivate after hardware surgery. On the pc I'm using now, the motherboard had to be replaced less than a year after I bought it brand new as well as the hdd during the same year. I also installed a second hdd which I've now replaced along with RAM twice. If I had had XP installed I don't know how many tymes I would of had to reactivate it. I also wanted to rebuild it however after looking at the prices for motherboards and cpus I decided it wold be cheaper to go ahead and buy a new PC. Which I did and it came with Linux preinstalled. Now if I want to I could go ahead and use the disk with the OS to install it on any other PC so long as the hardware is compatible. I could install it on 100 PCs leqally without having to Activate any of them or paying a license fee for any of them.
Am I the only one that finds the irony in states that issue ID's are resisting Federal ID's because they say ID's are an invasion of privacy?
I don't recall any state fighting this because it's an invasion of privacy, what I see as a reason to fight it is because nowhere in the USA Constitution does it give the federal government to power to require, or create, a national ID and this specifically violates the 10th Amendment, Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Also some states, like Maine, oppose it because it's another federal government mandate the states, not the feds, have to pay for. If the feds are going to require something them the feds are the ones that should pay for it! However because it DOES NOT have the power it should not have anything to do with a national ID.
These will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets),...
ID is not required to fly, either a person provides ID or they must be willing to go through a more extensive search. So as long as they allow the search they don't need id. Of course this only applies to domestic flights.
when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc.
Yeap, I can see it coming when a national ID is required, even for bank transactions. Which is why I'm glad more and more states are saying no to the Real ID Act.
Now, you might say, "But thats not what this legislation is for, its to prevent fraud." The fact remains that privacy will be lost and we will face these consequences. Even if the current administration shows restraint with these powers (fat chance of that) others could in the future.
Thing to ask people who support this is if they would support it if it was their opponent who asked for and wanted the power. Say a supporter is a Republican would they still support it if Democrats were the ones who wanted it? Seems like it's good if thier side wants it but it's bad if the other side wants it.
Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?
Actually as early as the early 1800s the USSC has ruled there is a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. It's right in there as part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The reasoning used is that if a person did not have the right to anonymous political speech then they couldn't exercise free speech.
Your best bet if you don't like this is to go off the grid. But we know what an exercise in futility that is unless you're willing to live in Montana ala Ted Kazinsky.
Actually more and more people are living off the grid, and it's getting easier and easier to build a home to live off the grid. Most of those doing so don't live in Montana either. Many live on either coast, CA to WA in the west and FL to ME in the east. A person can build a comfortable home off the grid in most places in the US, most parts of the US are either good for solar power or for wind power. For some it makes more sense to build an energy efficient home with solar or wind power than it is to have powerlines put in. And because those who put in these systems either won't have a power bill or will have one that is significantly reduced in cost, morgage lenders are offering higher morgages to those who do this than those that don't.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen such pessimistic claims for iris recognition. With a false accept rate of 1/1000 to 1/10000, you can achieve a false accept rate of pretty much zero. I respect Simon Davies, but I'm not sure he has his facts right here.
Actually the only place RTFA gives a rate of false positives is where it says "Good quality scans result in a 'false match' less than one time per one hundred billion (this system has been used with excellent results in the United Arab Emirates)." I'd say that's pretty good accuracy and makes tracking citizens, er suspects and terrorists, pretty easy with enough scanners.
FalconThe Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a variety of court decisions give various powers to the federal government while others are reserved to the states or to the individual.
There is neither specification in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights for anything like the Real ID. States have any rights of that nature. There also is no precedent to give the Federal government anything like a Real ID authority.
So a constitutional amendment would be required to enact Real ID. That won't happen. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will throw out the federal government's attempts to enforce a Real ID and will affirm the various states' exclusive rights.
Only if this were true, however the USSC has already shown it will allow the feds to do whatever it wants so long as the government can twist it around and say it's all about interstate commerce. The feds used the interstate commerce clause when arguing before the USSC in the GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al case dealing with medical marijuana in CA and the USSC Justices agreed.
Falconyou allude to something being lost with a national id. what exactly, in concrete terms, do you lose? you've listed some nebulous conceptual losses, but you haven't actually put your finger on a real threat to you. just phantoms and ghosts
You and those like you allude to the loss of something when there isn't a national id, security. Prove to me a national id will make people, not the government but people, safer. Otherwise all I can do about a call for a national id is to call it phamtoms and ghosts, or smoke and mirrors. Those who call for a national id are the ones creating paranoia.
I fear government more than terrorists. It's government that is the true terrorists.
Falcon50 different fractious models versus one model with more resources is obviously superior in terms of security, and has no more privacy concerns than the 50 different little models
Prove it!
in other words, you don't lose anything in terms of privacy, you only gain more security
Prove it!
you talk about an excuse to make a national id, with no gain in security. but you DO gain security, and you lose no more privacy
Prove it!
tell me: do people in washington dc want a national id because it occurs to them its less bureacracy
It's more bureacracy not less. You have not only the state bureacracy but also a federal bureacracy.
You, and others, go on about how a national id will increase peoples's security but not once have I seen either proof or a cogent argument that supports this. Fact is, with a national id there is one point of failure and if it fails everyone's put at risk.
Falconi understand privacy concerns and what they mean. but what i don't understand is if someone with privacy concerns were to grant that a state id is acceptable, why a national id is somehow any different or more onerus to privacy concerns. a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id
Privacy is an issue with a national id however such a thing actually affects state rights more. The Real ID act mandates states use one system when the USA Constitution gives no power to create a national id. A second problem is that this creates a bureaucratic boondongle the states have to pay for, the feds certainly aren't paying for it.
however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models
I have yet to see a cogent argument a national id will increase security.
its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government
Because people have more control over thier state government than they do over the federral government it is individuals against big government.
FalconJob background checks currently only check against the database in the current state I reserve the right to commit a crime and run away to another state!
This happened to me, I was a victim of someone who moved to another state because the state he lived in issued an arrest warrant with his name on it. I was in college when I was riding my bike after class and was hit by a moving van. To make a long story short, I lived in Florida and the driver had moved from Mass because Mass. had put out a warrant for his arrest. He had caused two accidents there because he was diabetic and didn't take care of his diabetes as well as was hospitalized twice for the same reason.
However just because these happen it does not mean we need the feds to mandate or require a national ID.
FalconExplain to me why a national ID surrenders more privacy than a state ID. It is not as though the federal government doesn't already have access to all 50 states' ID systems. What is the inherent harm in replacing 50 different databases with one database?
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is if the federal government has the power to create and mandate the use of a national ID. Since the USA Constitution says nothing about one the federal government does not have that power.
FalconI find it very interesting how the government convinced millions of very independent Americans to be tracked in the first place. Social Security, aka 'free' money.
Because of the Great Depression many people accepted Franklin Roosevelt's SS. Not all did though and took him to the USSC, however they lost becuase Roosevelt was able to pack the Supreme Court with SC Justices that supported him They ruled he could do it.
Falcontherefore, i'll say it again: 50 different fractious differently implemented, differently standardized, but excellent, state models is inferior to one poor national model in efficiency
And fascists love efficiency.
FalconSam's USED TO allow credit cards. Then they stopped. Then they said you could use Discover (or it might have been a Sam's branded Discover). Now they are accepting Master Card again, but not Visa. I have none of these. I'd rather use cash, anyway.
Ump, as I haven't been to Sam's in more than a year I'll have to check on this. As for using cash, I prefer to use cash myself but I don't particularly like carrying around a lot of it.
World's Smallest Political Quiz
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.
I like passing this quiz around to others myself. It always tells me I'm Libertarian.
Falconthe region known as texas, or california... they are subsets of the region i'm in
i am an american first, a new yorker a distant second
I am a living being first, earthling next, and human third. Regionally, though I don't live there now, I am a Floridian then an American.
is illegal mexican immigration only a problem for texas?
The only reason so called illegal immigrants are a national problem is because the federal government made it a problem at the behest of special interests. Throughout the history of the USA there have been those who sought to limit or prevent certain peoples from emmigrating to the USA. Benjamin Franklin wanted to bar Germans from coming to and settling in the USA. During the 1850s the Know Nothings wanted to bar Irish Catholics from the USA. Then there was the Chinese Exclusion Act barring Chinese. Now it's Mexicans and other Latin Americans who are being targetted.
If you want to stop "illegal Immigrants" from Mexico or other Latin American countries perhaps you should first ask why they are willing to risk live and limb to immigrate to the USA. A big part of why is that because of NAFTA US agribusinesses, with massive US government subsidies, are able to flood Mexican markets with food cheaper than what it cost a Mexican farmer to grow food on his or her farm. This drives farmers off their land and into Mexican cities or north. More former farmers in the cities pushs more of those already on the cities north as well. There they try to cross the border. Stop the government from handing out billions of dollars to big agribusiness and you will see the number of "illegals" trying to get into the US drop.
FalconSo, people freak out whenever the feds do something they don't like, but they haven't the slightest clue what anyone in their state government is up to, which rather makes the states the more dangerous beasts, since your state is not just your protection from the federal government--it is also the colluding executor of its will.
Actually most politics is local not national. People have more control, and exercise it, at the local level than they have at the national level. Don't believe it? Check with you local city and county governments. A group of people can have a more effective say in these than they can at the state or national level. When Alexis de Tocqueville travelled the USA in the 1820s he was amazed to see just how well democracy worked at the local level and wrote the book Democracy in America describing what he saw.
FalconThink again. Are you suggesting that the various celebrities actually give permission to the tabloids to publish the various paparazzi photos that are taken of them?
You brought up something I left out, since though these tabloids, rags, count as news and permission isn't needed for news or editorial purposes. We had a discussion on this in a photography class I took in college. In an ironic twist of fate a similar case came up as we were talking about legal aspects of photography. In the case a photographer in New Orleans had taken some photos of some bare breasted women during Mardi Gras. Some of them found their photo on the web and filed a lawsuit against the photographer. Because the photographer didn't make money off the photos and they were taken in a public space the judge ruled women's right to privacy wasn't violated.
FalconThis law is more than likely saving several thousand kids per year, at the cost of what? Nobody under the age of 21 has any more "freedom" to drink alcohol than they have "freedom" to smoke crack or drive without a license. There are plenty of laws that restrict all sorts of things; just because you want to do those things doesn't make them inalienable rights, and there is no guarantee in any of our founding documents that says anything different.
You've got it backwards. There is nothing in the founding documents, especially in the USA Constitution, giving power to the feds to regulate alcohol. And since the Constitution is a limit on government what it says nothing about the feds have no power to do. The Constitution says what the federal government can do, everything else is left to the people or to the states.
But a 3 year increase to the drinking age has helped dramatically reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths while just forcing you to wait a little bit longer to drink legally.
As far as I'm concerned this is BS. What needs to be done is not to raise the drinking age but is to hold those responsible for what they do while drinking, or anything else that influences them. Growing up my mother occassionally gave me somethig to drink, usually beer but also screwdrivers and other mixed drinks, yet I have not turned into a drunk or caused an accident while intoxicated. Actually I hate getting drunk. When drinking alcohol as soon as I start getting a buzz, which hasn't happened in more than 10 ten years, I stop drinking alcohol.
Many years ago I spent tyme in Germany and while there I saw how parents could order an alcoholic drink to their children while eating out. I was kind of shocked to see this, my mother did the same for me though she had to hide it. Yet Germany doesn't have a higher rate of drunken driving than the US has, despite having a lower blood alcohol content for drunken driving and higher alcohol content in beer than the US has. They deal with it effectively, when napped and found guilty of drunken driving there's a good change you'll spend tyme in gaol. You loose your license for several years then to get a new one you have to pay a high fee.
FalconUnfortunately when they return a movie that won't play on thier computer, people will find out they can't get a refund. Once the media container is opened all they can do is exchange it.
Unfortunately? Fortunately is more like it. Fortunate for those of us who love freedom, that is.
If you look at my post history you can see I love and value freedom, yet I still beleive it's unfortunate I can't get a refund once I open the wrapping of a movie. I have had to return movies more than once because the disk was bad. And no, I didn't try to play the movie on my computer, I have a stand alone dvd player but no dvd drive installed in any computer. I even had to exchange the media for one movie twice. I have several disks that won't play at all but I can't get a refund and I should be able to, when I buy something I expect it to work and if it doesn't I should be able to get a refund. Otherwise they're, the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer are ripping me off selling me defective merchandize. That is theft. Would you not return a PC if after buying it it didn't work?
FalconI don't particularly want to see what kind of a constitution would be written if we started over today.
If a new Constitution was written today for the USA I'm affraid it would end up like the failed EU Constitution, and be several hundred pages. That's not exactly a limited government. Anything over one or two pages is too much. Actually I'd like to see some amendments repealed. Starting with the Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.
Falcon"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"
Yeap, Alexis was amazed at how much control of government the cities and towns had and feared they'd loose it when he traavelled the USA. Sometimes I want to buy cases and cases of his "Democracy in America" to hand to people so they'd know what democracy means. Thomas Jefferson thought pretty much the same, that's why he suggested there should be a revolution every 20 years.
FalconSurely there's a connection between credit rating to poverty and poverty to crime?
Recently a study was done using GIS for an analysis of crime in New York. The area, buroughs, of NYC that had the highest rate of people in prison also had the lowest per capita income and got the lowest government assistance.
FalconAfter getting really pissed off about it, the next time someone asked my SS number (a membership at Sam's club), they refused to allow me to use a credit card (not theirs, just a plain old Visa or Mastercard), I had to use cash. I said "fine."
No Sam's I've been in accept any credit card with the exception of I believe it's the Discover card. I can't even use my visa debit card. If it weren't for the fact that the Sam's I go to had an atm from my bank I'd have to carry cash there. Unfortunately Costco is the same where I live.
FalconNot that I disagree with you but I'm always interested...How would you suggest that Microsoft protect its IP and stop *widespread* piracy of their product?
MS got so big partially from piracy, if they didn't want people stealing their IP then they should of taken measures to start with to prevent piracy. You don't use your bed as a toilet. Also if their business model isn't working they need to change their business model, and they started doing that using web based apps to sell services instead of selling software. When talking about protecting IP, if it were so important to to take the measure MS does then how is it other software companies, like Borland, CA, and Oracle, are able to stay in business without these measures? Now I'm not saying MS, or anyone else, can't or shouldn't take steps to stop piracy I just don't believe my OS should constantly phone home. When I install, or in the case of it being preinstalled when I get a computer, when I reinstall the OS I have to enter a key to use it. I don't mind this or maybe even having to activate it once, but I do mind if MY computer "phones home" or if I have to reactivate after hardware surgery. On the pc I'm using now, the motherboard had to be replaced less than a year after I bought it brand new as well as the hdd during the same year. I also installed a second hdd which I've now replaced along with RAM twice. If I had had XP installed I don't know how many tymes I would of had to reactivate it. I also wanted to rebuild it however after looking at the prices for motherboards and cpus I decided it wold be cheaper to go ahead and buy a new PC. Which I did and it came with Linux preinstalled. Now if I want to I could go ahead and use the disk with the OS to install it on any other PC so long as the hardware is compatible. I could install it on 100 PCs leqally without having to Activate any of them or paying a license fee for any of them.
Falcon"Notice please I said selling services and support. Nowhere did I mention a self-service business model."
Yes, "notice please" I said sell-service, not self-service. Jesus christ, learn to read.
Sorry, my mistake, for some reason I saw "self-service" not "sell-service". Maybe it's my sore eyes, or maybe I'm just tired.
FalconAm I the only one that finds the irony in states that issue ID's are resisting Federal ID's because they say ID's are an invasion of privacy?
I don't recall any state fighting this because it's an invasion of privacy, what I see as a reason to fight it is because nowhere in the USA Constitution does it give the federal government to power to require, or create, a national ID and this specifically violates the 10th Amendment, Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Also some states, like Maine, oppose it because it's another federal government mandate the states, not the feds, have to pay for. If the feds are going to require something them the feds are the ones that should pay for it! However because it DOES NOT have the power it should not have anything to do with a national ID.
FalconThese will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets),...
ID is not required to fly, either a person provides ID or they must be willing to go through a more extensive search. So as long as they allow the search they don't need id. Of course this only applies to domestic flights.
when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc.
Yeap, I can see it coming when a national ID is required, even for bank transactions. Which is why I'm glad more and more states are saying no to the Real ID Act.
Now, you might say, "But thats not what this legislation is for, its to prevent fraud." The fact remains that privacy will be lost and we will face these consequences. Even if the current administration shows restraint with these powers (fat chance of that) others could in the future.
Thing to ask people who support this is if they would support it if it was their opponent who asked for and wanted the power. Say a supporter is a Republican would they still support it if Democrats were the ones who wanted it? Seems like it's good if thier side wants it but it's bad if the other side wants it.
FalconPerhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?
Actually as early as the early 1800s the USSC has ruled there is a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. It's right in there as part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The reasoning used is that if a person did not have the right to anonymous political speech then they couldn't exercise free speech.
FalconYour best bet if you don't like this is to go off the grid. But we know what an exercise in futility that is unless you're willing to live in Montana ala Ted Kazinsky.
Actually more and more people are living off the grid, and it's getting easier and easier to build a home to live off the grid. Most of those doing so don't live in Montana either. Many live on either coast, CA to WA in the west and FL to ME in the east. A person can build a comfortable home off the grid in most places in the US, most parts of the US are either good for solar power or for wind power. For some it makes more sense to build an energy efficient home with solar or wind power than it is to have powerlines put in. And because those who put in these systems either won't have a power bill or will have one that is significantly reduced in cost, morgage lenders are offering higher morgages to those who do this than those that don't.
Falcon