Seconded. I judge people online by the attention they put into their writing (since that's all I know about them).
It especially annoys me when people attempt to participate in an intelligent discussion but can't bother to spell (or even break their thoughts into sentences), so while they may have interesting things to say, I'll never know because my brain won't process walls of broken English. (It's worse when the offender is a 13-year-old who tries to pretend he's older.)
My signature underwent a similar transformation over the years. Fifteen years ago it was clearly legible cursive, and now it's just a squiggle. (Incidentally, joking about this phenomenon once caused me to laugh chocolate milk through my nose. Quite unpleasant.) Like you, I only know what it says because it's supposed to be my name, and it looks like the rest of the squiggles I make when I sign my name.
Of course, even the squiggle is starting to lose stability. It used to have little bumps for each letter, but those bumps are smoothing themselves away now...
My handwriting, on the other hand, is fairly bad, but at least I can read it. I rarely write anything by hand that other people need to read anyway, and when I do (e.g. addressing an envelope) I try to write a little clearer. My wife's handwriting is fairly ugly, as well.
On the other hand, my dad's signature and handwriting are very clear (though other than his signature he just writes in small caps), and my mom has immaculate handwriting. There's definitely something generational going on here.
When I say "Intelligent Design", I'm simply referring to the idea that some intelligent being created [life|the universe|everything]. In my opinion, this idea says nothing about the manner by which things were created - according to this definition, this intelligent being very well could have used evolution as the mechanism to create life. The whole idea behind ID (under my definition) is that whatever the actual mechanism used to create life, it was guided by some intelligence. This is in contrast to the idea that life arose by circumstance and luck (which is the current view of modern science).
You're using "Intelligent Design" in the "anti-science religious zealot" sense; your statements are true, with that definition, but that's not really relevant to my comments.
I thought my previous post made that difference in definitions abundantly clear; I guess I was wrong.
The fact that you can implement an invention after you see somebody else doing it doesn't invalidate the invention.
Can i4i show that MS knew about their product before implementing the functionality in Word?
If MS implemented it, and legitimately knew nothing about i4i's product, then I don't think MS should be punished for re-inventing something independently. (IANAL, I don't know how patents are supposed to work when two people independently invent the same thing, but I would suppose it would be treated as if it were malicious patent infringement anyway.)
If, on the other hand, MS only implemented it after someone found i4i's product and said "Hey, we could do that," then of course they're in the wrong (legally speaking), and their only course of action would be to either settle (and possibly license) or get the patent invalidated.
Perhaps I should clarify. The belief that God designed the universe is in no way incompatible with science. This is what I mean when I say "Intelligent Design" - nothing more.
Yes, there are movements out there which twist this belief into something more than it is, and I do not agree with them. I'm not using "Intelligent Design" to refer to what these groups are pushing.
That would require re-signing contracts. I for one would not agree to a contract requiring me to squander my new-found free time unless it came with a significant increase in pay.
Exactly. They use Name + SSN as authentication, but anyone who overhears your phone conversation - for example, if they're on the bus seat next to you, or if they work in the next cubicle over - is then capable of "authenticating" as you.
Now, one might say "well then don't make those calls on the bus, or from work", but why should I have to wait to get home? In fact, sometimes you can't wait until you get home - customer service centers are sometimes only open 9-5, which are of course the hours when most people are at work themselves.
What's worse is that they'll ask you for the last four digits of your SSN over the phone, regardless of whether you're in a public place and may not want to say it out loud, and unless you say it out loud they won't let you continue on to the purpose of the call.
That's exactly how it should be - but as long as MS is giving discounts on OEM licenses for OEMs to avoid that, it's not going to happen. (Dell took a step in that direction, but not nearly close enough for it to matter.)
The problem is that it is used as a form of authentication, and rarely isn't identified.
Yes, that's quite true - and not storing the SSN at all would prevent that from happening. They can't ask me to tell them the last four digits of my SSN if they don't have my SSN, can they?
You SHOULD be able to post your SSN, name and DOB on a billboard and not care. That's the problem.
You're absolutely correct - but the way to fix that is to make companies not use the SSN for anything. Switching to an identifier that is related to the SSN but isn't actually the SSN would at least reduce the risk of identity theft until such a time as we can make SSNs unimportant again.
I'm not trying to argue that we should keep SSNs secret so much as I'm trying to argue that we should make companies not so directly dependent on SSNs. As long as companies depend on SSNs, we can't make them unimportant enough to post on billboards. Making them more secret in the meantime is just a side effect of making companies depend on them less (by not having them stored).
For your first point: If I wanted to consent to a credit check, then I'd have no problem giving them my SSN, but there's no reason they need to store that permanently. For my simple reasoning, keep reading.
For your second point: My last paragraph (see "Caveat:") in my previous post mentioned that idea, but you didn't read the last sentence:
I'm sure one could invent other methods of solving this.
One trivial solution would be to store only a hash of the SSN. That way, nothing is lost if the database is stolen/copied/sold, and nobody loses their privacy. The SSN is only in plain sight as long as it takes the CSR to type it into the computer.
Your argument would make sense, except that the Windows equivalent of the Linux laptop works just fine under Ubuntu, so obviously they don't need to change the hardware. (At least, that's the case with most every Dell I've ever used.)
I understand your point, but you often don't have a choice when you're buying a laptop.
For example, when I bought my laptop, I chose some specs, and then looked at various manufacturers to find the cheapest price. No manufacturer sold a model with those specs without Windows preinstalled.
Dell was cheapest by a few hundred dollars, so I called them up to see if they'd sell me the model I wanted without an OS. Of course, I got some CSR in India who couldn't understand why in the world I'd want a computer with no operating system, no matter how simply I tried to explain it (even saying just "I already have one" didn't work).
I ended up just getting XP Home and living with it.
But you would have me "go buy from someone else", despite the fact that nobody else was selling a comparable laptop without an OS for that price?
It's not about "growing up", it's about being annoyed that in order to get the hardware I wanted, I had to get software I didn't want, and I didn't really have a choice.
I'm talking about laptops, here. I build my own desktops, and I obviously don't pay for Windows for those if I don't need to.
When have I ever pretended religion is a science? I've merely said that science's beloved "test a hypothesis and see the result" method of learning can in fact be used in a religious context.
In fact, in other branches of this thread I've elaborated at length on the idea that religion and science are entirely orthogonal concepts, because the questions they attempt to answer are entirely different.
Part of the reason companies keep this information, in my estimation, is to have ready to perform future credit checks if you request additional service.
It's also so they can make you repeat to them the last four digits of your SSN over the phone, out loud, regardless of whether you're in a public place and might not want to tell everyone in the room the last four digits of your SSN. Oh, and that's just to prove you are who you say you are (even though it doesn't do any such thing).
Oh, and does it bug anyone else when the automated phone system says "we're pulling up your account based on your phone number for your convenience." and then the CSR immediately asks for the same information so they can pull up the account manually (which, of course, most of the time requires giving them the last four digits of your SSN)?
Why can't companies just generate their own unique ids? For example, Comcast doesn't need to know my SSN to know which Heron Blademaster I am, they have my address and phone number, and they don't need to compare notes with other companies to give me service.
Oh wait - they already do. They put a unique account number on every billing statement.
In other words, there's no legitimate reason for Comcast to store my SSN anywhere in their system, because they already have a unique identifier for me. (Caveat: they do it so that they can detect when someone leaves a large unpaid bill, moves to another location, and tries to sign up with a new account. I'm sure one could invent other methods of solving this.)
I don't mean to detract from your comments, but they're completely irrelevant to my situation, so allow me to elaborate (briefly) on the reason:
He enacted that policy because it probably dawned on him that he had no way to enforce whatever the company has in its Acceptable Use Policy (assuming there was one) because they don't own it.
First, there may have been an NDA, but I don't remember an AUP.
Second, if he cared about anyone's AUP he wouldn't have been pirating Windows, Office, various utility software products, and so on, not to mention the multi-thousand-dollar piece of software for which we had one license but had installed on nearly every single machine in the building...
This is the boss who said I could rewrite the hopelessly unmaintainable programs he had originally written for some tasks, but only if my new code duplicates the buggy functionality of the old code. Yes, you read that right.... so I understand your point, but it's not really applicable in my case;)
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded. I judge people online by the attention they put into their writing (since that's all I know about them).
It especially annoys me when people attempt to participate in an intelligent discussion but can't bother to spell (or even break their thoughts into sentences), so while they may have interesting things to say, I'll never know because my brain won't process walls of broken English. (It's worse when the offender is a 13-year-old who tries to pretend he's older.)
As for the article, I don't see why typing would ruin the ability to spell.
Think "Microsoft Word's autocorrect" and you'll get a fair idea how it might happen.
My signature underwent a similar transformation over the years. Fifteen years ago it was clearly legible cursive, and now it's just a squiggle. (Incidentally, joking about this phenomenon once caused me to laugh chocolate milk through my nose. Quite unpleasant.) Like you, I only know what it says because it's supposed to be my name, and it looks like the rest of the squiggles I make when I sign my name.
Of course, even the squiggle is starting to lose stability. It used to have little bumps for each letter, but those bumps are smoothing themselves away now...
My handwriting, on the other hand, is fairly bad, but at least I can read it. I rarely write anything by hand that other people need to read anyway, and when I do (e.g. addressing an envelope) I try to write a little clearer. My wife's handwriting is fairly ugly, as well.
On the other hand, my dad's signature and handwriting are very clear (though other than his signature he just writes in small caps), and my mom has immaculate handwriting. There's definitely something generational going on here.
We're having a terminology mismatch here.
When I say "Intelligent Design", I'm simply referring to the idea that some intelligent being created [life|the universe|everything]. In my opinion, this idea says nothing about the manner by which things were created - according to this definition, this intelligent being very well could have used evolution as the mechanism to create life. The whole idea behind ID (under my definition) is that whatever the actual mechanism used to create life, it was guided by some intelligence. This is in contrast to the idea that life arose by circumstance and luck (which is the current view of modern science).
You're using "Intelligent Design" in the "anti-science religious zealot" sense; your statements are true, with that definition, but that's not really relevant to my comments.
I thought my previous post made that difference in definitions abundantly clear; I guess I was wrong.
That's because he's sitting behind you.
I don't suppose you'd be willing to share...? I could use some entertainment today.
Microsoft is trying to claim XOR and AND at the same time.
Maybe their lawyers are using qubits to store their state?
The fact that you can implement an invention after you see somebody else doing it doesn't invalidate the invention.
Can i4i show that MS knew about their product before implementing the functionality in Word?
If MS implemented it, and legitimately knew nothing about i4i's product, then I don't think MS should be punished for re-inventing something independently. (IANAL, I don't know how patents are supposed to work when two people independently invent the same thing, but I would suppose it would be treated as if it were malicious patent infringement anyway.)
If, on the other hand, MS only implemented it after someone found i4i's product and said "Hey, we could do that," then of course they're in the wrong (legally speaking), and their only course of action would be to either settle (and possibly license) or get the patent invalidated.
Perhaps I should clarify. The belief that God designed the universe is in no way incompatible with science. This is what I mean when I say "Intelligent Design" - nothing more.
Yes, there are movements out there which twist this belief into something more than it is, and I do not agree with them. I'm not using "Intelligent Design" to refer to what these groups are pushing.
I think a move to Serbia would cost me more than just buying Windows licenses on the laptops I'm going to buy over the rest of my lifetime.
The trick is to (somehow, perhaps through black magic) make sure nobody will sign those contracts.
If they can't hire anyone with that sort of clause in the contract, they'll eventually take it out.
I know, I know, wishful thinking and all. I can still dream.
That would require re-signing contracts. I for one would not agree to a contract requiring me to squander my new-found free time unless it came with a significant increase in pay.
Exactly. They use Name + SSN as authentication, but anyone who overhears your phone conversation - for example, if they're on the bus seat next to you, or if they work in the next cubicle over - is then capable of "authenticating" as you.
Now, one might say "well then don't make those calls on the bus, or from work", but why should I have to wait to get home? In fact, sometimes you can't wait until you get home - customer service centers are sometimes only open 9-5, which are of course the hours when most people are at work themselves.
You're putting more thought into it than I was willing to ;)
I'd certainly agree with that solution.
What's worse is that they'll ask you for the last four digits of your SSN over the phone, regardless of whether you're in a public place and may not want to say it out loud, and unless you say it out loud they won't let you continue on to the purpose of the call.
That's exactly how it should be - but as long as MS is giving discounts on OEM licenses for OEMs to avoid that, it's not going to happen. (Dell took a step in that direction, but not nearly close enough for it to matter.)
The problem is that it is used as a form of authentication, and rarely isn't identified.
Yes, that's quite true - and not storing the SSN at all would prevent that from happening. They can't ask me to tell them the last four digits of my SSN if they don't have my SSN, can they?
You SHOULD be able to post your SSN, name and DOB on a billboard and not care. That's the problem.
You're absolutely correct - but the way to fix that is to make companies not use the SSN for anything. Switching to an identifier that is related to the SSN but isn't actually the SSN would at least reduce the risk of identity theft until such a time as we can make SSNs unimportant again.
I'm not trying to argue that we should keep SSNs secret so much as I'm trying to argue that we should make companies not so directly dependent on SSNs. As long as companies depend on SSNs, we can't make them unimportant enough to post on billboards. Making them more secret in the meantime is just a side effect of making companies depend on them less (by not having them stored).
For your first point: If I wanted to consent to a credit check, then I'd have no problem giving them my SSN, but there's no reason they need to store that permanently. For my simple reasoning, keep reading.
For your second point: My last paragraph (see "Caveat:") in my previous post mentioned that idea, but you didn't read the last sentence:
I'm sure one could invent other methods of solving this.
One trivial solution would be to store only a hash of the SSN. That way, nothing is lost if the database is stolen/copied/sold, and nobody loses their privacy. The SSN is only in plain sight as long as it takes the CSR to type it into the computer.
Even better, don't purchase a laptop with Windows pre-installed if you have no intention of using it.
The choice is often "a much crappier laptop without Windows" or "the same laptop, but more expensive, without Windows".
Why should I be forced to pay more for the same hardware just because I don't want Windows?
Your argument would make sense, except that the Windows equivalent of the Linux laptop works just fine under Ubuntu, so obviously they don't need to change the hardware. (At least, that's the case with most every Dell I've ever used.)
I understand your point, but you often don't have a choice when you're buying a laptop.
For example, when I bought my laptop, I chose some specs, and then looked at various manufacturers to find the cheapest price. No manufacturer sold a model with those specs without Windows preinstalled.
Dell was cheapest by a few hundred dollars, so I called them up to see if they'd sell me the model I wanted without an OS. Of course, I got some CSR in India who couldn't understand why in the world I'd want a computer with no operating system, no matter how simply I tried to explain it (even saying just "I already have one" didn't work).
I ended up just getting XP Home and living with it.
But you would have me "go buy from someone else", despite the fact that nobody else was selling a comparable laptop without an OS for that price?
It's not about "growing up", it's about being annoyed that in order to get the hardware I wanted, I had to get software I didn't want, and I didn't really have a choice.
I'm talking about laptops, here. I build my own desktops, and I obviously don't pay for Windows for those if I don't need to.
When have I ever pretended religion is a science? I've merely said that science's beloved "test a hypothesis and see the result" method of learning can in fact be used in a religious context.
In fact, in other branches of this thread I've elaborated at length on the idea that religion and science are entirely orthogonal concepts, because the questions they attempt to answer are entirely different.
Part of the reason companies keep this information, in my estimation, is to have ready to perform future credit checks if you request additional service.
It's also so they can make you repeat to them the last four digits of your SSN over the phone, out loud, regardless of whether you're in a public place and might not want to tell everyone in the room the last four digits of your SSN. Oh, and that's just to prove you are who you say you are (even though it doesn't do any such thing).
Oh, and does it bug anyone else when the automated phone system says "we're pulling up your account based on your phone number for your convenience." and then the CSR immediately asks for the same information so they can pull up the account manually (which, of course, most of the time requires giving them the last four digits of your SSN)?
Why can't companies just generate their own unique ids? For example, Comcast doesn't need to know my SSN to know which Heron Blademaster I am, they have my address and phone number, and they don't need to compare notes with other companies to give me service.
Oh wait - they already do. They put a unique account number on every billing statement.
In other words, there's no legitimate reason for Comcast to store my SSN anywhere in their system, because they already have a unique identifier for me. (Caveat: they do it so that they can detect when someone leaves a large unpaid bill, moves to another location, and tries to sign up with a new account. I'm sure one could invent other methods of solving this.)
I don't mean to detract from your comments, but they're completely irrelevant to my situation, so allow me to elaborate (briefly) on the reason:
He enacted that policy because it probably dawned on him that he had no way to enforce whatever the company has in its Acceptable Use Policy (assuming there was one) because they don't own it.
First, there may have been an NDA, but I don't remember an AUP.
Second, if he cared about anyone's AUP he wouldn't have been pirating Windows, Office, various utility software products, and so on, not to mention the multi-thousand-dollar piece of software for which we had one license but had installed on nearly every single machine in the building...
This is the boss who said I could rewrite the hopelessly unmaintainable programs he had originally written for some tasks, but only if my new code duplicates the buggy functionality of the old code. Yes, you read that right. ... so I understand your point, but it's not really applicable in my case ;)