Just NO. This is quite wrong.

That is the problem biometrics were INTENDED to solve. But all wishful thinking aside, so far nobody has been able to DESIGN a biometrics system that actually solves it.

This is an excellent ILLUSTRATION of how Seagate's design decisions were pretty obviously bonehead.

Their Flash research division convinces the bigwigs to put all their money behind the technology... but it's not really quite ready for prime time. Meanwhile, their HD operations -- which USED TO be just fine -- have shut down anything over 5,400 rpm.

That's only half the problem. Seagate made a SECOND really poor decision, when it decided to dump the manufacture of spinning platters over 5400 RPM. They were TOLD that was a bad idea, yet they did it anyway, and look at the results: their very FiRST generation of new drives can't keep up. And what about the future?

Come on, Seagate. That's TWO MAJOR dumbass moves in a row.

Yes, of course. I didn't state that their pay should be the median. My point was that it should be tied to the median. So if the median income goes up, so does theirs, and vice versa.

Of course, this is somewhat predicated upon the idea that they aren't getting outrageous amounts of lobbying money, which would destroy the whole concept.

I therefore propose that lobbying be abolished.

Yes, you can do something, *IF* you can get the legislation passed. Granted, that is sometimes a rather large hurdle. But in principle, it's actually very simple.

First off -- and related to both the former and latter parts of your sentence -- you can limit contributions from ANY entity other than a voting-eligible citizen, to ZERO. Both campaign and other contributions. Half the problem is solved right there. Make it a crime for both parties involved, and give it teeth.

Second, limit the TOTAL political contributions from any of those individual voters, annually, to a reasonable percentage -- say, maybe 10% or even much less -- of the MEDIAN U.S. annual income. That solves most of the problem of rich people having more influence. Poor people can easily outgun them with a little bit of effort and sacrifice. It may not be ideal, but it's WORLDS better, and far more FAIR, than what we have now.

Well, what I meant was that it should be a FIXED -- i.e., not easily increased -- MULTIPLE of the median.

Start paying them like peons and most of the candidates will be whackos. You have to be realistic.

I think you have misunderstood.

The idea is, they get paid that much and THAT'S ALL.

They can still profit from their own private business, true. But how did they get that business in the first place? Brown-nosing politicians?

If you take the big money out of politics, and keep it out, you will soon see people who are actually there to do some good, rather than a great big circle-jerk.

Nah. Wouldn't work. The next year they'd amend it to 1.5%. then 1%. Then 0.5%...

Can't give 'em the opportunity. Stick it to the median and keep it there.

Having said that, I don't think they should be PAID the median. But a rigidly-fixed multiple of the median. Say, 2 x the median. I like that figure because it would keep everybody perpetually pissed off.

It would be like Grey Goo, only produced without nanotechnology.

Yes! Thank you. It's a nuisance when you can so clearly see something in your mind's eye and know it should be easy to find, but not be able to find it because of not remembering its name. Good work.

It's just yet another proof (as though more were needed) that security isn't something you can bolt-on after the fact. It would probably have required of them less effort to have done a rewrite from scratch, designed from the beginning with security in mind, than to have issued so very many patches and updates throughout the years.

Do they never consider that? Or I suppose it doesn't matter until something really embarassing like this happens?

We live in a society that, as Bill Hicks noted, is at about an eighth-grade emotional level collectively (he was being generous). Few people acknowledge the logical consequence, and seem to believe it magically goes away if they really, badly, truly wish hard enough or get upset enough.

I suspect the government understands the situation, however. Malicious attackers and other criminals exploiting mandatory backdoors only provides an excuse for more laws regulating the Internet and expanding executive powers. To protect you from those evil hackers, of course. If nothing else, the NSA gets their little back-door so they can more easily betray their own countrymen in the name of safety; if that goes wrong in the worst possible way, then: bonus! For the evil men who love power and know no loyalty, it's a win-win. Sadly.

Do you mean that literally, or do you merely observe that few social conventions actually make any sense? Some of them even seem deliberately designed to inhibit personal growth.

Because in a way, that's a great big joke all by itself. It's just not nearly so funny as it could be.

The way that you say this reminds me of a photograph I saw in a history textbook back in high school. I have searched and (not remembering its name) cannot locate the image or else I'd provide a link, but I believe it comes from the time of the Industrial Revolution.

It's an old black-and-white photograph. It shows a man using a large wrench or spanner on a machine. The man's back is bent into an arc and his body contorted so that he may use the wrench on something not designed with ergonomics in mind. The purpose of the photograph is to show a man bending and yielding to a machine that was nominally supposed to serve men. It's similar to the notion that what you own also owns you.

I realize you were possibly being facetious, yet nonetheless you reminded me of something I haven't seen or heard about in years. I'd be interested if anyone here knows the photo to which I refer.