If two particles sent back in time arrive in the same order and at the same interval, then you could send information, even if you're restricted to morse code or something. I'd bet that the timing and ordering of the particles' arrival could not be controlled, but I would not complain if someone proves me wrong:)
I think that's a fine reason for a person deciding to personally not use proprietary software. I think it's a terrible reason to say everyone should only use free software. I'm a software developer, but I don't want to be told "add it in yourself" when I go looking for a new feature, most especially when that feature is already available elsewhere. Certainly, non-programmers do not want to get that answer either! It is unreasonable to expect that of the general population.
To give a concrete example, I choose to use iTunes and/or Windows Media Player because they are easy to use and provide all the features I need without any tweaking; I have never found this to be the case for any FOSS media player. (Quite the opposite.) Why should I spend my time fixing the deficiencies in one of a dozen FOSS media players when I can just use a proprietary one that I know works? "It helps everyone else" is a good ideal, but it is not a good argument. I have better things to do with my time than fix deficiencies in FOSS media players.
My problem with Stallman isn't that he doesn't want to use proprietary software, or even that he thinks proprietary software is inherently evil; my problem is that his reason for opposing cell phones is simply paranoia. Yes, there's a chance someone will use your cell phone to track where you are.The ability to track your location is inherent in the nature of the device - you have to be connected wireless to a tower, therefore you can be tracked with some degree of precision. Has Stallman suggested an alternative technology that allows mobile communication but prevents the device from being tracked? Is it his opinion that we should not use mobile communication devices at all, merely because they can be tracked?
More importantly, why is this small chance that someone will bother tracking my location so bad? It's not hard to find my home address; it's equally trivial to find the address of the building I work in. I must travel between the two locations, so my usual approximate location during commuting hours is obvious. Anyone passingly familiar with me knows I go to church on Sundays, and church building locations and meeting times are also public knowledge. That's all without ever tracking me through my cell phone. I don't care if people know any of that, so why should Stallman's problem with cell phones concern me? I'm not asking why I should care about privacy; I'm generally opposed to government policies that reduce privacy. I'm asking, why I should care that my phone reveals my location when my location is virtually always known anyway?
A good solution to the problem "I don't want to be tracked when I go to location X" that does not require giving up the benefits of having a mobile communication device is to not carry your device when you go to location X. It's a silly reason to abandon mobile communication technology entirely.
As for microphones theoretically recording me, I see no real reason for concern there, either. There is a very large difference between theoretical threats and likely threats. My computer could be recording me, too, in theory, whether or not I'm running open source software, but that theory does not mean I should abandon the use of computers, nor does it mean that computers are "tools of Big Brother".
I'll say this another way, because Stallman and many of my fellow Slashdotters apparently don't understand the concept: in any society, we must give up some degree of privacy in order to interact with one another. It is stupid to make interaction with each other much harder on the slim chance that someone might use a person's cell phone to track or listen to that person.
Yes, there's always the possibility that companies will screw up their software, or remove features, etc., like Sony with OtherOS. "Only use FOSS" is not the only solution, nor is it even the best solution in many cases. The most practical solution is to not buy from companies that do this. Companies aren
If you use proprietary software, you get fucked, and that is the common case, not the rare case. It happens to most users at one time or another. Some of them realize what caused their problems and become "OSS geeks," and some of them don't get it, and repeat the mistake again and again and again, never ever learning how they set themselves up to become dependent on third parties.
And some of us got tired of having to dual-boot just to play games, of trying to hack various things together to get games to run under wine, of having a selection of high-quality games smaller than the selection available for OSX, of having distro updates hork the system (*cough*Ubuntu 10.10*cough*), of getting told "STFU and RTFM" when asking for help, of being told "you don't want to do that" when asking how to do something without being asked why I wanted to do it, of being told "recompile it with X, Y, Z flags" to solve various problems, of being told to "submit a patch" when asking about a bug or missing feature, of running software with fewer features for... what, ideological reasons? Should I go on?
I'm a software developer as a profession and as a hobby, but I have very little interest in fixing my tools (let alone my operating system!) as a prerequisite to working on the stuff I actually care about.
Honestly, I have no reason to fully switch back to Linux, and I will not have a reason unless (or, if you insist, until) I get somehow meaningfully screwed over by proprietary software. Thus far, the only times I have been screwed over by software in any meaningful way have been caused by problems with Linux (e.g. the aforementioned Ubuntu 10.10 update which pretty much made my system unusable).
IMNSHO, it's kind of stupid to refuse to use proprietary software on the chance that it will screw you over someday. If it works well, use it, and if it does screw you over (e.g. Sony removing OtherOS), then switch to alternatives - and that applies to open source software as much as it applies to proprietary software.
Now, before people flame me, I do like Linux, and I use it daily, along with several useful open source tools, but until the open source community can match a lot of the "evil" proprietary software out there, I have a very strong incentive to stay with proprietary software.
As another practicing member of the LDS Church, I second LWATCDR's objection to Cmdr Taco's tag line. We do not practice polygamy, and using a story tag to imply that we do is a deliberate participation in perpetuating that incorrect idea.
I'm also getting quite frustrated with the Slashdot editors' complete inability to do even a quick reading of the referenced article before posting a summary, especially when the summary is inflammatory like this one. The article makes no reference to political party affiliation as a motivation for the bill, nor does it reference the LDS Church in any way.
Why does Slashdot even *have* editors, if they're not going to fact-check?
I suggest you learn how to read studies, and then do so.
I'll start reading their studies when they stop selectively excluding data in order to produce the results they want.
I'll start reading their studies when they stop cherry-picking a time range for the study in order to produce the results they want. (The time range stuff is at the beginning of part 1; other issues are examined in that 4-part video series as well.)
I'll start reading their studies when they stop trying to avoid publishing in peer-reviewed journals, when they stop trying to sabotage the careers of scientists who disagree with them (same link), when they stop ignoring the objections of other scientists, and so on and so forth.
In short, why should I trust the conclusions of these "scientists" when they repeatedly demonstrate that they're interested in "proving" pre-determined results, often in exchange for large grants, rather than actually finding the truth?
We will not be able to properly explore deep space and survive our eventual destruction without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well.
I think you're greatly underestimating the importance of privacy. Suppose you were put into juvenile detention for a few weeks for some relatively small offense, but did not commit even a traffic violation during the following 20 years. Now suppose this is true of 20% of the population. If each individual keeps this secret of his or her youth, would you argue that those harmless secrets prevent our survival as a race?
Or suppose you have a shoe fetish that you only indulge in your bedroom. "Complete openness in all aspects of our lives" certainly encompasses that, seeing as how it is an aspect of one's life; is it your argument that we cannot explore deep space or survive our supposed eventual destruction if we don't know about your shoe fetish?
I see absolutely no reason why "properly exploring deep space" or "surviving our eventual destruction" should depend on "complete openness in all aspects of our lives". It's a rather large leap of logic and an absurdly broad requirement, but you've provided no basis for the argument.
I like the idea of issuing a baseball bat to every passenger at boarding time (to be returned at the destination gate) for that reason. Sure, a terrorist on board would have a bat, but he'll find it difficult to use when everyone else does too... That way there's no chance that most passengers simply won't have melee weapons with them.
I think the reason Ubuntu instructs the user to reboot is that relatively few Ubuntu users would understand that they don't need to reboot, they "just" need to manually restart services A, B, and C, kill Gnome, and then log in again... That sort of thing is far beyond the capabilities of your average computer users.
Besides, who really wants to look through dozens of updates to figure out the affected services? I know I'd rather just reboot. It takes far less time than reading all the update notes and then trying to remember whether any services that depend on those updated packages (but were not themselves updated) need to be restarted as well.
The problem is, it isn't the school's responsibility to get kids to school, it's the parents' responsibility. Think of this from the kid's perspective. If your teachers don't trust you, you have no reason to trust them, right? And if you don't trust them, why would you want to listen to what they try to teach, or do as they say?
Schools should not be forcing kids to do anything at all. If the school is concerned that a student's absences are impeding his learning, or provide any other concern, they should go through the kid's parents. If a student is behaving disruptively, then nothing the school can do will improve the situation; that must be resolved by the kid's parents. No good can come of allowing schools to do more than simply teach the students.
Kids may not be fully developed, but they're far more intelligent and perceptive than you give them credit for. They are, in fact, capable of making good long-term decisions, if their parents teach them how to do it. They are, in fact, capable of understanding why they should attend school and put some effort into it, if their parents teach them why. They are, in fact, capable of understanding why they should behave respectfully to their fellow students and to teachers, if their parents teach them why. These are not problems resolvable by GPS tracking devices or detention, they must be resolved by good parenting.
Parents who want schools to do their parenting for them are causing far more trouble than anything else. Parents who do not accept responsibility for their child's behavior -- by attempting to force schools to take on that responsibility -- are giving that child a very poor message: "we don't love you enough to take care of you." I'm sure I don't have to explain why that would tend to worsen a child's behavior, rather than improve it -- and as I already pointed out, good parenting is the solution, not draconian school-instituted punishments.
Freedom and privacy should be earned through good behavior.
From the parents' perspective, yes; but schools have no place deciding how much freedom or privacy students have, least of all after school hours, away from school property. This GPS tracking crosses the line rather blatantly, but requiring an 8pm check-in is even more ridiculously invasive. My wife and I are the only two people who have a reason to know where our daughter is at 8pm.
if the parents can't keep the kids in check it makes sense to work something out.
There be dragons! It is an extremely bad, dangerous idea to allow schools to take over any aspect of parenting; schools should teach the curriculum, nothing else. It is not the school's place to decide a parent isn't "keeping the kids in check" well enough for the school's taste.
When my daughter goes to school, I intend to see to it that the school does not overstep its bounds. I don't care whether the school thinks I'm too lax; it's not their business how I raise my child. I certainly don't intend to simply let her run amok with no discipline, but it will be my discipline, not that of some uncaring school official. If circumstances dictate that she must be tracked, I will do the tracking as I see fit, not the school.
Instead it focuses on regimented, pre-proscribed, and totally "safe" curriculum which ultimately destroys any motivation to TRY to learn something new, and engaging later.
This was precisely my problem. After elementary school, I quickly became bored with the curriculum in middle school, and with only one or two exceptions, it got even worse in high school. I probably averaged a B- through high school (and even then, only because my parents were not pleased when I got Cs). But I wasn't dumb, by any means; my SAT/ACT scores were high enough to get me a full tuition scholarship for college despite my poor GPA.
In other words, my problem was apathy, and apathy is not solved by removing fun from the classroom. The few classes I actually enjoyed were classes where I was *encouraged* to have fun; I particularly enjoyed the jewelry-making and basic electronics classes. I loved the yearly statewide high school programming competition put on by a local university my first two years of high school, but what teacher really cares enough to put in the time to help prepare four kids for a one-time competition? It didn't help that the teacher put in charge of that was really the golf coach and remedial math teacher. Suffice it to say, despite my pleas, we did not attend the competition my senior year.
People like to say that high school is supposed to prepare kids for college. In my case, that wasn't even close to true. By the time I got to college, apathy had become a habit, and I'm sure I don't have to point out that apathy doesn't produce good grades in college.
Agreed. Removing kids' privacy is obviously the goal -- hence the requirement to check in at 8pm. Schools should not know or care where kids are after school.
They don't always need or want to identify you personally; often, they're most interested in seeing which groups of customers buy which products, and how often, because that lets them plan what inventory to stock, when they should have sales to drum up more business and what items to discount, and so on and so forth.
Demographic information like that is often more valuable than knowing the actual identity of a particular customer.
In the US, at least, credit cards don't usually have PINs; debit cards do, and they go through Visa or MC's networks too, but they pull money from your bank account, rather than a line of credit. Of course, that's fine, if you always have enough money...
It's in Visa's best interest that merchants not request ID; remember, credit card companies work very hard to make sure the merchants assume most of the risk. From Visa's perspective, they want customers to have an easy time making transactions, and not requiring ID makes it easier. They don't particularly care if someone rips off a merchant.
I use one particular site just once a month, to make a loan payment, and I can never remember the password. I got tired of having to reset my password through the "forgot your password" thingy every single month, so eventually I chose a password something along the lines of "ThisSiteSucks!". Then I IM'd it to a friend of mine, telling him to remind me of the new password if I ask.
Of course, my password for that site is in our IM logs now, which is where I look it up every month, but the worst that could happen would be someone making loan payments for me, which I wouldn't really complain about...
I'm not sure what site it is, but I'm pretty sure one of them that I need to access requires a 6-8 character password.
American Express, for one. Here's a fun screenshot I took a while back. The "password strength" meter is also humorous; it just chooses the number of bars based on how many letters and numbers there are; it doesn't bother checking if the password itself is strong. For example, it gives "aaaaa555" the highest rating.
There's some other site I use regularly that also has the same policy, but I can't think of what it is at the moment.
I've never understood this "no spaces" rule that seems to be mentioned everywhere. You're going to hash the string anyway, and spaces are as hashable as anything else, so why prohibit them? I should be able to use a full limerick as my password, spaces and punctuation included...
You don't need one device for each password, if the service provider provides a phone app for you, like Blizzard. I'd be perfectly fine with adding an 'Auth apps' folder on my phone and sticking all the 'keyfob' apps in there, and I would gladly make use of it.
Slashdot Mirror
If two particles sent back in time arrive in the same order and at the same interval, then you could send information, even if you're restricted to morse code or something. I'd bet that the timing and ordering of the particles' arrival could not be controlled, but I would not complain if someone proves me wrong :)
I think that's a fine reason for a person deciding to personally not use proprietary software. I think it's a terrible reason to say everyone should only use free software. I'm a software developer, but I don't want to be told "add it in yourself" when I go looking for a new feature, most especially when that feature is already available elsewhere. Certainly, non-programmers do not want to get that answer either! It is unreasonable to expect that of the general population.
To give a concrete example, I choose to use iTunes and/or Windows Media Player because they are easy to use and provide all the features I need without any tweaking; I have never found this to be the case for any FOSS media player. (Quite the opposite.) Why should I spend my time fixing the deficiencies in one of a dozen FOSS media players when I can just use a proprietary one that I know works? "It helps everyone else" is a good ideal, but it is not a good argument. I have better things to do with my time than fix deficiencies in FOSS media players.
My problem with Stallman isn't that he doesn't want to use proprietary software, or even that he thinks proprietary software is inherently evil; my problem is that his reason for opposing cell phones is simply paranoia. Yes, there's a chance someone will use your cell phone to track where you are.The ability to track your location is inherent in the nature of the device - you have to be connected wireless to a tower, therefore you can be tracked with some degree of precision. Has Stallman suggested an alternative technology that allows mobile communication but prevents the device from being tracked? Is it his opinion that we should not use mobile communication devices at all, merely because they can be tracked?
More importantly, why is this small chance that someone will bother tracking my location so bad? It's not hard to find my home address; it's equally trivial to find the address of the building I work in. I must travel between the two locations, so my usual approximate location during commuting hours is obvious. Anyone passingly familiar with me knows I go to church on Sundays, and church building locations and meeting times are also public knowledge. That's all without ever tracking me through my cell phone. I don't care if people know any of that, so why should Stallman's problem with cell phones concern me? I'm not asking why I should care about privacy; I'm generally opposed to government policies that reduce privacy. I'm asking, why I should care that my phone reveals my location when my location is virtually always known anyway?
A good solution to the problem "I don't want to be tracked when I go to location X" that does not require giving up the benefits of having a mobile communication device is to not carry your device when you go to location X. It's a silly reason to abandon mobile communication technology entirely.
As for microphones theoretically recording me, I see no real reason for concern there, either. There is a very large difference between theoretical threats and likely threats. My computer could be recording me, too, in theory, whether or not I'm running open source software, but that theory does not mean I should abandon the use of computers, nor does it mean that computers are "tools of Big Brother".
I'll say this another way, because Stallman and many of my fellow Slashdotters apparently don't understand the concept: in any society, we must give up some degree of privacy in order to interact with one another. It is stupid to make interaction with each other much harder on the slim chance that someone might use a person's cell phone to track or listen to that person.
Yes, there's always the possibility that companies will screw up their software, or remove features, etc., like Sony with OtherOS. "Only use FOSS" is not the only solution, nor is it even the best solution in many cases. The most practical solution is to not buy from companies that do this. Companies aren
If you use proprietary software, you get fucked, and that is the common case, not the rare case. It happens to most users at one time or another. Some of them realize what caused their problems and become "OSS geeks," and some of them don't get it, and repeat the mistake again and again and again, never ever learning how they set themselves up to become dependent on third parties.
And some of us got tired of having to dual-boot just to play games, of trying to hack various things together to get games to run under wine, of having a selection of high-quality games smaller than the selection available for OSX, of having distro updates hork the system (*cough*Ubuntu 10.10*cough*), of getting told "STFU and RTFM" when asking for help, of being told "you don't want to do that" when asking how to do something without being asked why I wanted to do it, of being told "recompile it with X, Y, Z flags" to solve various problems, of being told to "submit a patch" when asking about a bug or missing feature, of running software with fewer features for... what, ideological reasons? Should I go on?
I'm a software developer as a profession and as a hobby, but I have very little interest in fixing my tools (let alone my operating system!) as a prerequisite to working on the stuff I actually care about.
Honestly, I have no reason to fully switch back to Linux, and I will not have a reason unless (or, if you insist, until) I get somehow meaningfully screwed over by proprietary software. Thus far, the only times I have been screwed over by software in any meaningful way have been caused by problems with Linux (e.g. the aforementioned Ubuntu 10.10 update which pretty much made my system unusable).
IMNSHO, it's kind of stupid to refuse to use proprietary software on the chance that it will screw you over someday. If it works well, use it, and if it does screw you over (e.g. Sony removing OtherOS), then switch to alternatives - and that applies to open source software as much as it applies to proprietary software.
Now, before people flame me, I do like Linux, and I use it daily, along with several useful open source tools, but until the open source community can match a lot of the "evil" proprietary software out there, I have a very strong incentive to stay with proprietary software.
As another practicing member of the LDS Church, I second LWATCDR's objection to Cmdr Taco's tag line. We do not practice polygamy, and using a story tag to imply that we do is a deliberate participation in perpetuating that incorrect idea.
I'm also getting quite frustrated with the Slashdot editors' complete inability to do even a quick reading of the referenced article before posting a summary, especially when the summary is inflammatory like this one. The article makes no reference to political party affiliation as a motivation for the bill, nor does it reference the LDS Church in any way.
Why does Slashdot even *have* editors, if they're not going to fact-check?
That includes offering a standard 6-megabit-per-second plan, which is fast enough to handle Internet video, for roughly $50 a month.
Uh... they already offer 12Mbps plans for $43/month... I hope that doesn't get interpreted as an encouragement to increase prices.
Very well. Remove "often in exchange for large grants" and answer the resulting question.
I suggest you learn how to read studies, and then do so.
I'll start reading their studies when they stop selectively excluding data in order to produce the results they want.
I'll start reading their studies when they stop cherry-picking a time range for the study in order to produce the results they want. (The time range stuff is at the beginning of part 1; other issues are examined in that 4-part video series as well.)
I'll start reading their studies when they stop trying to avoid publishing in peer-reviewed journals, when they stop trying to sabotage the careers of scientists who disagree with them (same link), when they stop ignoring the objections of other scientists, and so on and so forth.
In short, why should I trust the conclusions of these "scientists" when they repeatedly demonstrate that they're interested in "proving" pre-determined results, often in exchange for large grants, rather than actually finding the truth?
We will not be able to properly explore deep space and survive our eventual destruction without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well.
I think you're greatly underestimating the importance of privacy. Suppose you were put into juvenile detention for a few weeks for some relatively small offense, but did not commit even a traffic violation during the following 20 years. Now suppose this is true of 20% of the population. If each individual keeps this secret of his or her youth, would you argue that those harmless secrets prevent our survival as a race?
Or suppose you have a shoe fetish that you only indulge in your bedroom. "Complete openness in all aspects of our lives" certainly encompasses that, seeing as how it is an aspect of one's life; is it your argument that we cannot explore deep space or survive our supposed eventual destruction if we don't know about your shoe fetish?
I see absolutely no reason why "properly exploring deep space" or "surviving our eventual destruction" should depend on "complete openness in all aspects of our lives". It's a rather large leap of logic and an absurdly broad requirement, but you've provided no basis for the argument.
You don't get those things if you're flying domestic... at least not that I've ever seen. They don't even feed you nowadays.
I like the idea of issuing a baseball bat to every passenger at boarding time (to be returned at the destination gate) for that reason. Sure, a terrorist on board would have a bat, but he'll find it difficult to use when everyone else does too... That way there's no chance that most passengers simply won't have melee weapons with them.
I think the reason Ubuntu instructs the user to reboot is that relatively few Ubuntu users would understand that they don't need to reboot, they "just" need to manually restart services A, B, and C, kill Gnome, and then log in again... That sort of thing is far beyond the capabilities of your average computer users.
Besides, who really wants to look through dozens of updates to figure out the affected services? I know I'd rather just reboot. It takes far less time than reading all the update notes and then trying to remember whether any services that depend on those updated packages (but were not themselves updated) need to be restarted as well.
The problem is, it isn't the school's responsibility to get kids to school, it's the parents' responsibility. Think of this from the kid's perspective. If your teachers don't trust you, you have no reason to trust them, right? And if you don't trust them, why would you want to listen to what they try to teach, or do as they say?
Schools should not be forcing kids to do anything at all. If the school is concerned that a student's absences are impeding his learning, or provide any other concern, they should go through the kid's parents. If a student is behaving disruptively, then nothing the school can do will improve the situation; that must be resolved by the kid's parents. No good can come of allowing schools to do more than simply teach the students.
Kids may not be fully developed, but they're far more intelligent and perceptive than you give them credit for. They are, in fact, capable of making good long-term decisions, if their parents teach them how to do it. They are, in fact, capable of understanding why they should attend school and put some effort into it, if their parents teach them why. They are, in fact, capable of understanding why they should behave respectfully to their fellow students and to teachers, if their parents teach them why. These are not problems resolvable by GPS tracking devices or detention, they must be resolved by good parenting.
Parents who want schools to do their parenting for them are causing far more trouble than anything else. Parents who do not accept responsibility for their child's behavior -- by attempting to force schools to take on that responsibility -- are giving that child a very poor message: "we don't love you enough to take care of you." I'm sure I don't have to explain why that would tend to worsen a child's behavior, rather than improve it -- and as I already pointed out, good parenting is the solution, not draconian school-instituted punishments.
Freedom and privacy should be earned through good behavior.
From the parents' perspective, yes; but schools have no place deciding how much freedom or privacy students have, least of all after school hours, away from school property. This GPS tracking crosses the line rather blatantly, but requiring an 8pm check-in is even more ridiculously invasive. My wife and I are the only two people who have a reason to know where our daughter is at 8pm.
if the parents can't keep the kids in check it makes sense to work something out.
There be dragons! It is an extremely bad, dangerous idea to allow schools to take over any aspect of parenting; schools should teach the curriculum, nothing else. It is not the school's place to decide a parent isn't "keeping the kids in check" well enough for the school's taste.
When my daughter goes to school, I intend to see to it that the school does not overstep its bounds. I don't care whether the school thinks I'm too lax; it's not their business how I raise my child. I certainly don't intend to simply let her run amok with no discipline, but it will be my discipline, not that of some uncaring school official. If circumstances dictate that she must be tracked, I will do the tracking as I see fit, not the school.
Instead it focuses on regimented, pre-proscribed, and totally "safe" curriculum which ultimately destroys any motivation to TRY to learn something new, and engaging later.
This was precisely my problem. After elementary school, I quickly became bored with the curriculum in middle school, and with only one or two exceptions, it got even worse in high school. I probably averaged a B- through high school (and even then, only because my parents were not pleased when I got Cs). But I wasn't dumb, by any means; my SAT/ACT scores were high enough to get me a full tuition scholarship for college despite my poor GPA.
In other words, my problem was apathy, and apathy is not solved by removing fun from the classroom. The few classes I actually enjoyed were classes where I was *encouraged* to have fun; I particularly enjoyed the jewelry-making and basic electronics classes. I loved the yearly statewide high school programming competition put on by a local university my first two years of high school, but what teacher really cares enough to put in the time to help prepare four kids for a one-time competition? It didn't help that the teacher put in charge of that was really the golf coach and remedial math teacher. Suffice it to say, despite my pleas, we did not attend the competition my senior year.
People like to say that high school is supposed to prepare kids for college. In my case, that wasn't even close to true. By the time I got to college, apathy had become a habit, and I'm sure I don't have to point out that apathy doesn't produce good grades in college.
Agreed. Removing kids' privacy is obviously the goal -- hence the requirement to check in at 8pm. Schools should not know or care where kids are after school.
They don't always need or want to identify you personally; often, they're most interested in seeing which groups of customers buy which products, and how often, because that lets them plan what inventory to stock, when they should have sales to drum up more business and what items to discount, and so on and so forth.
Demographic information like that is often more valuable than knowing the actual identity of a particular customer.
In the US, at least, credit cards don't usually have PINs; debit cards do, and they go through Visa or MC's networks too, but they pull money from your bank account, rather than a line of credit. Of course, that's fine, if you always have enough money...
How does one file a formal complaint?
Your zip code is a very poor choice for authentication.
Stores ask for your zip code because they're interested in customer demographics, not authentication.
It's in Visa's best interest that merchants not request ID; remember, credit card companies work very hard to make sure the merchants assume most of the risk. From Visa's perspective, they want customers to have an easy time making transactions, and not requiring ID makes it easier. They don't particularly care if someone rips off a merchant.
Hahaha. Thanks, I need a laugh :) I think I might do that from now on...
I tell stores "you don't need my zip code" when they ask. As far as I can tell, they just enter "00000" into their terminal instead.
I use one particular site just once a month, to make a loan payment, and I can never remember the password. I got tired of having to reset my password through the "forgot your password" thingy every single month, so eventually I chose a password something along the lines of "ThisSiteSucks!". Then I IM'd it to a friend of mine, telling him to remind me of the new password if I ask.
Of course, my password for that site is in our IM logs now, which is where I look it up every month, but the worst that could happen would be someone making loan payments for me, which I wouldn't really complain about...
I'm not sure what site it is, but I'm pretty sure one of them that I need to access requires a 6-8 character password.
American Express, for one. Here's a fun screenshot I took a while back. The "password strength" meter is also humorous; it just chooses the number of bars based on how many letters and numbers there are; it doesn't bother checking if the password itself is strong. For example, it gives "aaaaa555" the highest rating.
There's some other site I use regularly that also has the same policy, but I can't think of what it is at the moment.
I've never understood this "no spaces" rule that seems to be mentioned everywhere. You're going to hash the string anyway, and spaces are as hashable as anything else, so why prohibit them? I should be able to use a full limerick as my password, spaces and punctuation included...
You don't need one device for each password, if the service provider provides a phone app for you, like Blizzard. I'd be perfectly fine with adding an 'Auth apps' folder on my phone and sticking all the 'keyfob' apps in there, and I would gladly make use of it.