Ummm, yeah... which is exactly what I said, if you read my post. There is a demonstrable benefit to controlling access that doesn't have anything to do with trust.
Does your wife have the passwords for all of your email accounts? If not, is it because you don't trust her? Or is it because: a) she doesn't need it, b) she doesn't want it, and c) basic security rules dictate that less access yields higher security? Again: Trust doesn't need to have anything to do with it.
In any case, I'm not sure how repeating what the OP said, which I also said in my post constitutes an argument. Yes, his wife doesn't have access to accounts in his name. Granted. How does that in any way argue against my post?
You know that marriages are based on/trust/, right? If you don't trust your wife, why are you married to her, and why does she put up with your mistrust?
I don't really see this as a trust issue at all. The point poster was making is that he needs to know where all purchases come from so that he knows if they are incorrect. Control of access doesn't automatically imply mistrust.
In many marriages only one of the members is responsible for paying bills. That doesn't necessarily imply that they don't trust the other person to do it, merely that it is more convenient and less prone to error (double paying or non-payment). In a similar fashion, only having one person on each account ensures that all charges can be identified immediately, making it easier to detect fraud and errors.
He also doesn't have visibility on his wife's spending habits (not being on her accounts) which actually implies more trust than joint accounts in that particular dimension.
In its most general form, "engine" just means something that provides power to do mechanical work.
Typically, the main propulsion power source for a transport is called the engine, no matter what the power source actually is. Even in a modern aircraft carrier or steamship, the place where the work is done is called the engine room, even though its a nuclear reactor or boiler and steam turbines (heat engine) in there. So its just what you call it when you don't specify exactly what the propulsion will be.
Sorry to be the syntax Nazi here, but I suspect he should be "discreet" about it, rather than split in separate and distinct pieces. Not that it invalidates your point, you know, just saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, yeah... which is exactly what I said, if you read my post. There is a demonstrable benefit to controlling access that doesn't have anything to do with trust. Does your wife have the passwords for all of your email accounts? If not, is it because you don't trust her? Or is it because: a) she doesn't need it, b) she doesn't want it, and c) basic security rules dictate that less access yields higher security? Again: Trust doesn't need to have anything to do with it. In any case, I'm not sure how repeating what the OP said, which I also said in my post constitutes an argument. Yes, his wife doesn't have access to accounts in his name. Granted. How does that in any way argue against my post?
You know that marriages are based on /trust/, right? If you don't trust your wife, why are you married to her, and why does she put up with your mistrust?
I don't really see this as a trust issue at all. The point poster was making is that he needs to know where all purchases come from so that he knows if they are incorrect. Control of access doesn't automatically imply mistrust.
In many marriages only one of the members is responsible for paying bills. That doesn't necessarily imply that they don't trust the other person to do it, merely that it is more convenient and less prone to error (double paying or non-payment). In a similar fashion, only having one person on each account ensures that all charges can be identified immediately, making it easier to detect fraud and errors.
He also doesn't have visibility on his wife's spending habits (not being on her accounts) which actually implies more trust than joint accounts in that particular dimension.
In its most general form, "engine" just means something that provides power to do mechanical work. Typically, the main propulsion power source for a transport is called the engine, no matter what the power source actually is. Even in a modern aircraft carrier or steamship, the place where the work is done is called the engine room, even though its a nuclear reactor or boiler and steam turbines (heat engine) in there. So its just what you call it when you don't specify exactly what the propulsion will be.
Sorry to be the syntax Nazi here, but I suspect he should be "discreet" about it, rather than split in separate and distinct pieces. Not that it invalidates your point, you know, just saying.