I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but this system sounds like it's meant for something other than what they say it's for. What economic incentive does a supermarket chain have to spend huge sums of money on this system to solve a problem (underage purchase) that actually increases sales. I suppose the chain would save fines from the government for underage sales when caught, but unless they are doing extremely poor verification now, that can't be that much. And in that case the problem is cashiers not doing their job of checking ids correctly. Why should their customers have to submit to this degradation of privacy to solve a problem with the cashiers.

No, it's pretty clear to me that this system would be primarily used for other things. Tracking known shoplifters or bad check writers might be one thing. Perhaps the police would get a feed allowing them to track known lawbreakers.

Most disturbingly, I see it being used for marketing purposes. In the USA all the supermarket chains give out "member cards" with unique ids, so that they can track what a particular person buys over time. This data is so valuable to marketers that I usually save 10-20% off my grocery bill using a "member card". But it's also currently fairly easy to fool the system by registering for multiple cards with bogus information.

A biometric recognition system would be the ultimate tool for letting marketers identify which purchases were made by which person. They wouldn't even have to offer discounts for that privacy invasion, which could save big bucks for the chains, at our expense.

I used to ran an "honor system" candy store at my workplace... people grab the candy I bought at costco, and put their coins in a box. I once did an inventory and found shrinkage of about 22%, which was about exactly my profit margin. This was within an suburban white collar USA office secured with guards and electronic id locks. It's sad that we just don't have the same ethical standards in the USA as in Canada where people are only now starting to lock their cars.

I suppose the problem with the "tip jar" is the possibility that the publisher could feel sleighted because the publisher presumably has no contractual means of accepting such donations. Why not focus your efforts on laying the legal groundwork for your publisher to accept such donations. Or simply use a "tip jar" to fund events where you promote your book, which is in your and the publisher's interest.

So nobody saw anything wrong with cops distributing a voyeuristic photo of a guy's private parts to the news media for a laugh? We've got to get the EFF working on important privacy matters. I kid. Not.

Cameras will become ubiquitous... there's already at least two that record me everytime I go outside my apartment. The important work that EFF does is to make sure there are consequences when the technology is misused.

I have 30 gigs of legally purchased, CD ripped music, purchased over a couple of decades. I could never understand why anyone would want an ipod with only a few gigs of flash memory. But now it's dawning on me: Most folks only need a player that will play the your recently purchased itunes because all the old stuff will die of DRM rot.

Actually cashing a check does not obligate you to fulfill any obligations set out on the check. In the late 80's all the long distance companies were sending me $50 and $100 checks with the text on the back endorsement box "I agree to switch to MCI/Sprint/ATT/etc". I would just deposit them in the ATM without signing the back, and they never switched me. It was free money. There's also legal precedent that contracts cannot be established by notations on checks. Otherwise you could write "cashing this check entitles me to free service for life" on the check you send in for your monthly bills.

Normally when investing you have to accept both the upside and the downside. What the real estate players did was find ways to get the upside while shifting the downside to someone else up the food chain. E.g. the small investor who gets a 110% mortgage and then walks away if the property doesn't appreciate. Everyone up and down the food chain did this, setting themselves so that if things went bad the person above them took the fall. This is why small problems turned into big problems.

Cool way to make a shocker. But this is way too dangerous for a conscientous prankster. There's no control to prevent the capacitor from completely discharging all its power into the victim. At least tasers have circuitry that controls the pulse width and current in order to try and keep the shock nonlethal.

It'd be safer just to punch people in the gut while they have the camera up to their face.

I just found this real poster at the San Francisco Airport BART station. In a city like San Francisco unusual people are the rule not the exception.

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj266/polamit/bdetectsmall.jpg

#13 wrote: "The law does make the government liable for potential crimes, like child internet porn, so they take preventive steps."

What law? Why does this law only apply to DIA but municipal wifi and private wifi don't have to install filters? Nevermind, it must be a seecret law like the TSA guidelines.

No, there are only two reasons for these filters:

1. Lazy CYA (Is that vulgar :-?)
2. Nanny state.

Since Denver's a pretty liberal town I'm guessing it's lazy CYA. Someone just installed the filter because they thought it would make their job easier. Posts like Xeni's shift the balance so it's easier for the lazy admin to remove the filter.

Here's the link to the $10,000 challenge info:
http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

It's not just cables; even amplifiers are indistinguishable above a low threshold of quality. Richard Clark offers $10,000 to anyone who can show that they hear a difference in his test. Thousands have tried, none have succeeded.

Handcuffs are not a good lock.

I did about a day of internet research on locks the last time my bike was stolen. It turns out handcuff type locks are already made by other companies, and they offer extremely poor protection for the weight and price.

The problem in all cuff type locks is that the link between the cuffs is both not strong enough to resist cutting attacks, and not flexible enough to resist leverage attacks.

What really resists determined attacks is mass of hardened steel, small size to lower leverage possibilities and weight, and uniformity so there aren't any failure points. U locks like the Kryptonite Fahgettaboudit U lock (which I got) or the lighter Mini Evolution are a bit better or just as good as the top chain locks like the NY Fahgettaboudit.

My approach is to use locking wheel skewers and seat leash and then just lock the frame to a pole with the Fahgettaboudit U lock.

I have flown at least a dozen times with my key style multitool on a keychain with other keys in my carry on bag:

http://www.swisstechtools.com/productdetail.aspx?PID=VZ75GDTdP68A

Nobody ever noticed it. About half the flights were in the USA and the rest in other countries. I wasn't trying to be testy, just forgot it was there.