It means nothing of the sort. That is an assumption on your part.

OP asked for "biometric" ID, okay? RFID, cards, NFC, etc. are not biometric. The reasonable assumption -- unlike yours -- is that he had an actual REASON for asking for biometrics. People don't usually say things for no reason.

Having said that, most consumer-level biometrics are crap. Despite Apple, fingerprint readers are crap for any kind of real security. Capacitance is even worse. You can foil it (pun intended, but pretty literally) with a tinfoil hat.

My best recommendation would be voice recognition. Not the "Hey, Google, where is 'Interstellar' playing nearby?" kind but the person-recognition kind. It's pretty good and not terribly expensive.

Please total up a reasonable estimate of the cost of the CO2 and get back to me. "Horrendous" is not acceptable. I want figures based on real science and economics.

Pretty obviously there is no such figure. So far, nobody has managed to prove damage to date over the last couple of decades is any higher than ZERO. Sure, there have been lots of claims but there have been lots of claims of UFOs too. I want evidence.

You don't get to ruin MY economy simply because you're a coward who will believe anything you're told.

Give me a fucking break. Google may be "more" responsible than "some" companies about what it does with my information, but that hardly makes it a saint.

I'm not going to bother listing the UNETHICAL things Google has done. They are all around us. Should I count how many times it has been to court -- and either LOST or settled -- over privacy violation issues? Does that sound like an angel acting in your best interest?

I could go on for ages, but why should I? Your implication that Google is somehow "ethical" just because it doesn't do the worst of the shit that others do is ridiculous on its face.

No, you have it backward. The FIRST problem is that the Internet companies are badly (and inadequately) regulated. That's what causes internet to be worse there. The density problem in rural areas just makes it WORSE.

Yeah, especially the taxpaying American public in recent years, it seems.

As usual, you have your context scrambled again.

I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy.

This is why I don't engage you on this. My comments are only for the edification of other readers. You and I have been over this many, many times now, and your repetition of your BAD PHYSICS isn't going to make it any more true.

It should be pretty clear to anybody who has actually been following these exchanges that I'm just not playing your game. My solution was already demonstrated to be true, and your solution was already demonstrated to be false. I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't.

No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way.

Have a nice day. Or not.

And AC first post -- and the first responder to the post -- appear to have been hit on the heat by a very heavy nail.

RFID, chips, cards, etc. have the SAME "problem" as IP addresses: they don't identify the PERSON, they just identify the identification. If someone else is holding the identification, all bets are off.

Entire movies have been made about this. I mean, come on.

One day the sun will kick your ass.

That really is a concern for many distros, though.

I have to admit that the Linux principle "do one thing and do it well" actually does work. Did some things need improvement? Yes. But systemd has become like a Cthulhu in the system, with tentacles everywhere, far beyond its original concept.

I have to agree with some others who have said that systemd resembles Windows a hell of a lot more than Linux.

Yes. I think it is pretty clear that the auto makers got themselves into this mess -- as they have often done -- by doing stupid shit they did not understand.

Pardon me for hijacking this higher position, but a serious pet peeve has been triggered.

Hey, Bennett, or samzenpus, or whoever did it:

You do NOT put your own hypotheticals in quotes. Got it? Quotes are used for QUOTING OTHER PEOPLE. That's their purpose. Learn it. Use it. And it's usually best if readers can tell who is being quoted, even if only via context.

Thank you very much.

Give Haselton a break. He has done us all not just one but many public services.

Having said that... let's be honest: sometimes Haselton expounds on things that are very clearly not in his area of expertise, and certain Slashdot editors (for that is exactly what they are) probably give him too much "air time" on Slashdot. Especially, it seems, when he is expounding on something that is not in his area of expertise.

But while this one is rather long-winded, it IS an issue everyone here should pay attention to, regardless of whether we happen to agree with Haselton and his analysis.

If Haselton bores you, blame the editor(s) for putting him up too often, in regard to things he is hardly an acknowleged authority.

In case my point wasn't clear, I'll spell it out explicitly:

I don't give a damn if Postma is rude... as long as his physics is sound.

Like me, he has had to deal with innumerable assaults by other rude people, who DON'T understand the physics. After a time, that does have an effect, and one gets to the point of having a short fuse. That's just human nature, when people are exposed to bullying and harassment for years on end.

If people are bothered by his rudeness, and wonder what caused it, many of them need only look in a mirror. I have little sympathy for them.

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.

End of story.

I found it very interesting that his followup article, which I also discovered just today, mentioned the same problem with your version of the physics of Spencer's experiment that I mentioned to you in our prior discussion. To wit:

(a) Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice, and

(b) If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop.

All in all, I found his arguments to be mathematically and physically sound, and yours not. That is why I have stopped arguing the point with you. Repeating unsound physics over and over is not going to make it more true, no matter how much you might wish it would.

They knew it wouldn't succeed based on economics alone. At no time in recent years would I have called Google very cognizant of morals.