It is all relative. Really, it depends on your definition of the word "catholic." If you mean it as a shorthand for a full practicing member of the catholic church, then you are not a catholic. But if you mean it be whatever you think you are, then you are catholic. There are plenty of catholics who fall into that category, BTW. For example, somewhere north of 90% of catholics use contraception in direct contradiction with church doctrine. Very few people, even within the church hierarchy, would deny them their catholicism.
That is why it is ridiculous to hold members of a mainstream religion in any way responsible for the actions of extremists who claim the religion as their own. They both have different definitions of the word.
Are the only alternatives in our political system truly the insanity we see out of the Rs or the incompetence we see out of the Ds?
I do not see a fractious political party as incompetent. In fact, I like it. Given the choice I'd rather have a ton of parties and dynamic coalitions like many other countries have. But given the structure of our system which practically guarantees two dominant parties, a fractious party is the best I can expect.
In order to prove your qualifications to drive, you don't need to prove who you are, only that you have passed the driving exam and don't have any black marks on your driving record.
Totally false in most States. You absolutely have to prove who you are according to the standards of your State laws
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
That's the way it is now because a federated identity is the default. But FUNCTIONALLY it does not need to be that way.
Also, if you didn't prove your identity, how would then know if you have any black marks on your driving record?!?! Didn't thunk of that, didja?
Are you being willfully obtuse? If you have black marks it goes on your record with the DMV. If you try to get another license from the DMV, then the DMV looks you up and checks if you have ever been issued a license before. The context of your identity does not need to exist beyond the driver licensing system in order for that to work.
Sorry though if you have no Constitutional or common law right to be free of government red tape.
If that's your rationalization then you aren't even close to being a conservative.
Border crossings aren't even in the same league.
You mean if I choose to temporarily leave the US then it doesn't matter if the government denies me the right to live in my own country?
While I am not all that happy with the state of border crossings in the US, they certainly do make life crappy for the people who get entangled in their bureaucracy, the number of people affected is a completely different league.
> Should they stop asking for passports at the border and just take my word that I'm a citizen?
The right to work and therefore support yourself is about as universal as it gets. Border crossings aren't even in the same league. The rest of your examples are even worse attempts at equivalence.
Maybe you genuinely don't see the difference, but the difference is so stark that I can't help but doubt your good faith.
The Democratic Party (DP?) is much more splintered. While there is probably just as much asshattery, it is on a more individual basis because the Democratic Party leadership doesn't have nearly as much influence over individual votes. So they can't enforce their preferred brand of asshattery as the party line.
FWIW, this is the same conclusion I've come too as well. The democrat party is not quite like herding cats, but they are anarchists compared to the republicans. Everybody has heard the term RINO, but DINO is rarely used and only came into existence after RINO became such a popular epithet.
> As far as I know, Muslims believe that everyone is born a Muslim. It doesn't matter who the father is. John McCain is a muslim.
The really zealous even go so far as to call converts "reverts." It is all pretty self-absorbed of them, kind of like those mormons who do posthumous baptisms.
Yeah, it is common to get a discount on your internet service on the order of $5/month if you sign up for the most basic cable tv service versus having no tv service. Doesn't mean you have to use it.
Identity theft only works because of federated identity. If the only identity that matters for a bank account is some sort of credential you receive as part of opening the account, then it doesn't matter who you are when you open a bank account and thus someone can't fraudulently open one in someone else's name - there is no "name."
I'm not saying society as we know it today could just switch over to context-specific identities, obviously there is a whole lot of infrastructure built on the idea of a federated identity. But it doesn't have to be that way for the majority of our uses.
The vast majority of people who go to the bank to withdraw money do it legally, yet they still ask me for ID.
Are you serious? You don't see a substantial difference between the government granting you permission to work and a company you've hired to keep your money secure keeping it secure?
If that's what you're upset about then you're 27 years too late, because the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 requires you to prove that you can legally work in the US (Form I-9, which just about anyone who has had a job has filled out). E-verify is just a way to make it harder to cheat on that system.
Yes the I-9 requirement is bogus, but at least it didn't actually have to go to the government for a yes/no - employers only have to keep it on file. E-verify took it to a whole new level.
An appropriate system would have narrowly defined reasons for requiring proof
It does - you only have to do it when you get a job.
Uverse has coverage of around 30M homes, out of around 125M in the country and some of those areas they have the catv monopoly too.
Since uverse is mostly fiber to the neighborhood with DSL from there, maximum effective speed varies a lot because DSL is distance dependent. 18-24Mbps is the shortest distance.
How do you verify that anyone has a right to work in the US without getting them to provide proof?
You don't verify - the default assumption is that anyone who says they have the right to work does. After all, the vast majority of people in the US do have the right to work. Building a system that treats the normal case as the exception is bad design.
There's a lot of value in having a way to undeniably prove your identity in the eyes of the law. It could help a lot with identity theft and identification wipe-out(like your house burning down).
No, there is only a small amount of value in being able to prove your identity in the eyes of the law. How often have you been to court? For the vast majority of people such interactions are few and far between.
There is value in being able to prove your identity in a bunch of different contexts - like withdrawing money from the bank. It doesn't matter who you are, it only matters that you own the account that you are withdrawing from. Same thing with a driver's license. In order to prove your qualifications to drive, you don't need to prove who you are, only that you have passed the driving exam and don't have any black marks on your driving record. The list goes on and on.
The value of contextual identity is hundreds of times more useful than the value of a single federated identity.
If you live in the USA and have access to more than one high-speed internet provider you are exceptionally lucky. Most people have to choose between catv or dsl and dsl doesn't qualify as high-speed anymore.
The idea of a la carte pricing for cable tv is probably nearly as old as cable tv. They've been talking about it forever and never getting shit done.
About 3 years ago I gave up and became a cord-cutter - internet only for everything. I don't give a damn about pro sports (bread and circuses) so it has worked out great for me. Now if only I didn't have to buy my internet access from a company that is also a cable-tv provider...
having to get permission from the federal government in order to work
That requirement has existed for a very long time. You have to be a citizen or have the proper visa in order to legally work in the US.
No it hasn't. Being a citizen and being required to prove your citizenship are two entirely different things.
An appropriate system would have narrowly defined reasons for requiring proof, not a blanket requirement of everyone. Even an error rate of 0.1% means hundreds of thousands of people get screwed by the system. This (and e-verify) are mechanisms that embody guilty until proven innocent.
Stuff like this really pisses me off. Doubly so because the people who normally run around talking about preventing government interference in business seem happy to create programs like this (and the already existing e-verify) that boil down to having to get permission from the federal government in order to work.
It is hard to imagine a more pervasive and intrusive control over society than having to get President Obama's permission in order to feed and clothe your children. And yet the people who should be howling at such things are happy to embrace them because their xenophobia trumps their patriotism.
Slashdot Mirror
It is all relative. Really, it depends on your definition of the word "catholic." If you mean it as a shorthand for a full practicing member of the catholic church, then you are not a catholic. But if you mean it be whatever you think you are, then you are catholic. There are plenty of catholics who fall into that category, BTW. For example, somewhere north of 90% of catholics use contraception in direct contradiction with church doctrine. Very few people, even within the church hierarchy, would deny them their catholicism.
That is why it is ridiculous to hold members of a mainstream religion in any way responsible for the actions of extremists who claim the religion as their own. They both have different definitions of the word.
Are the only alternatives in our political system truly the insanity we see out of the Rs or the incompetence we see out of the Ds?
I do not see a fractious political party as incompetent. In fact, I like it. Given the choice I'd rather have a ton of parties and dynamic coalitions like many other countries have. But given the structure of our system which practically guarantees two dominant parties, a fractious party is the best I can expect.
In order to prove your qualifications to drive, you don't need to prove who you are, only that you have passed the driving exam and don't have any black marks on your driving record.
Totally false in most States. You absolutely have to prove who you are according to the standards of your State laws
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
That's the way it is now because a federated identity is the default. But FUNCTIONALLY it does not need to be that way.
Also, if you didn't prove your identity, how would then know if you have any black marks on your driving record?!?! Didn't thunk of that, didja?
Are you being willfully obtuse? If you have black marks it goes on your record with the DMV. If you try to get another license from the DMV, then the DMV looks you up and checks if you have ever been issued a license before. The context of your identity does not need to exist beyond the driver licensing system in order for that to work.
Sorry though if you have no Constitutional or common law right to be free of government red tape.
If that's your rationalization then you aren't even close to being a conservative.
Border crossings aren't even in the same league.
You mean if I choose to temporarily leave the US then it doesn't matter if the government denies me the right to live in my own country?
While I am not all that happy with the state of border crossings in the US, they certainly do make life crappy for the people who get entangled in their bureaucracy, the number of people affected is a completely different league.
> Should they stop asking for passports at the border and just take my word that I'm a citizen?
The right to work and therefore support yourself is about as universal as it gets. Border crossings aren't even in the same league. The rest of your examples are even worse attempts at equivalence.
Maybe you genuinely don't see the difference, but the difference is so stark that I can't help but doubt your good faith.
The Democratic Party (DP?) is much more splintered. While there is probably just as much asshattery, it is on a more individual basis because the Democratic Party leadership doesn't have nearly as much influence over individual votes. So they can't enforce their preferred brand of asshattery as the party line.
FWIW, this is the same conclusion I've come too as well. The democrat party is not quite like herding cats, but they are anarchists compared to the republicans. Everybody has heard the term RINO, but DINO is rarely used and only came into existence after RINO became such a popular epithet.
> As far as I know, Muslims believe that everyone is born a Muslim. It doesn't matter who the father is. John McCain is a muslim.
The really zealous even go so far as to call converts "reverts." It is all pretty self-absorbed of them, kind of like those mormons who do posthumous baptisms.
Don't forget -- take two drinks for every AC who puts in enough time to write an original passive-aggressive drinking game post.
Yeah, it is common to get a discount on your internet service on the order of $5/month if you sign up for the most basic cable tv service versus having no tv service. Doesn't mean you have to use it.
Identity theft only works because of federated identity. If the only identity that matters for a bank account is some sort of credential you receive as part of opening the account, then it doesn't matter who you are when you open a bank account and thus someone can't fraudulently open one in someone else's name - there is no "name."
I'm not saying society as we know it today could just switch over to context-specific identities, obviously there is a whole lot of infrastructure built on the idea of a federated identity. But it doesn't have to be that way for the majority of our uses.
So the only way you find out that someone doesn't have the right to work is if somebody else finds out and snitches on them, because you can't ask?
You can ask. You should just believe them. Kind of like the way we believe that someone driving on the freeway is licensed to drive.
The vast majority of people who go to the bank to withdraw money do it legally, yet they still ask me for ID.
Are you serious? You don't see a substantial difference between the government granting you permission to work and a company you've hired to keep your money secure keeping it secure?
If that's what you're upset about then you're 27 years too late, because the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 requires you to prove that you can legally work in the US (Form I-9, which just about anyone who has had a job has filled out). E-verify is just a way to make it harder to cheat on that system.
Yes the I-9 requirement is bogus, but at least it didn't actually have to go to the government for a yes/no - employers only have to keep it on file. E-verify took it to a whole new level.
An appropriate system would have narrowly defined reasons for requiring proof
It does - you only have to do it when you get a job.
Wow. That's not intellectually dishonest at all.
Uverse has coverage of around 30M homes, out of around 125M in the country and some of those areas they have the catv monopoly too.
Since uverse is mostly fiber to the neighborhood with DSL from there, maximum effective speed varies a lot because DSL is distance dependent. 18-24Mbps is the shortest distance.
How do you verify that anyone has a right to work in the US without getting them to provide proof?
You don't verify - the default assumption is that anyone who says they have the right to work does. After all, the vast majority of people in the US do have the right to work. Building a system that treats the normal case as the exception is bad design.
The people proposing current immigration amnesty, of course.
Since you didn't actually say that, kinda hard to figure out what you meant. Your context is not everyone else's context.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of people who illegally come to the US come for work not charity your post was a non sequitur anyway.
Almost everybody has the choice between Comcast & AT&T at the very least, not to mention smaller local services and satellite.
ATT is DSL except for a handful of towns. DSL, Satellite, and all the fixed wireless ISPs are not high-speed. Maybe a decade ago, but not nowadays.
There's a lot of value in having a way to undeniably prove your identity in the eyes of the law. It could help a lot with identity theft and identification wipe-out(like your house burning down).
No, there is only a small amount of value in being able to prove your identity in the eyes of the law. How often have you been to court? For the vast majority of people such interactions are few and far between.
There is value in being able to prove your identity in a bunch of different contexts - like withdrawing money from the bank. It doesn't matter who you are, it only matters that you own the account that you are withdrawing from. Same thing with a driver's license. In order to prove your qualifications to drive, you don't need to prove who you are, only that you have passed the driving exam and don't have any black marks on your driving record. The list goes on and on.
The value of contextual identity is hundreds of times more useful than the value of a single federated identity.
If you live in the USA and have access to more than one high-speed internet provider you are exceptionally lucky. Most people have to choose between catv or dsl and dsl doesn't qualify as high-speed anymore.
The idea of a la carte pricing for cable tv is probably nearly as old as cable tv. They've been talking about it forever and never getting shit done.
About 3 years ago I gave up and became a cord-cutter - internet only for everything. I don't give a damn about pro sports (bread and circuses) so it has worked out great for me. Now if only I didn't have to buy my internet access from a company that is also a cable-tv provider...
having to get permission from the federal government in order to work
That requirement has existed for a very long time. You have to be a citizen or have the proper visa in order to legally work in the US.
No it hasn't. Being a citizen and being required to prove your citizenship are two entirely different things.
An appropriate system would have narrowly defined reasons for requiring proof, not a blanket requirement of everyone. Even an error rate of 0.1% means hundreds of thousands of people get screwed by the system. This (and e-verify) are mechanisms that embody guilty until proven innocent.
Stuff like this really pisses me off. Doubly so because the people who normally run around talking about preventing government interference in business seem happy to create programs like this (and the already existing e-verify) that boil down to having to get permission from the federal government in order to work.
It is hard to imagine a more pervasive and intrusive control over society than having to get President Obama's permission in order to feed and clothe your children. And yet the people who should be howling at such things are happy to embrace them because their xenophobia trumps their patriotism.
Other hardware vendors are be defrauded by the illusion that the patents have some legitimacy.
Well, if you are going to make your own definitions for words, then clearly that's nicotine.
Hey dumbass, what part of "FFS patents are public documents." did you fail to understand?
Partial quoting in order to knock down strawmen is some really pathetic shit.
Who is being frauded? It ain't laundering money if the money is obtained by lawful means in the first place.