I'm fascinated by how racist right-wingers denigrate the very word "folks" by using it to describe peoples they don't like (ie not their own). And how it's "leftists" who make the welfare state, not rightwingers who keep people down by offering them addictive welfare instead of funding education, healthcare, childcare, proper credit, crime prevention... Do you have as much to say about rightwingers pumping $billions into corporate welfare (greater than individual welfare) and other wealth redistribution primarily to Republican states and their crony corporations?
And how they know welfare recipients won't work for extra money if they can get away with it, like by recycling cans, hauling trash, babysitting, and maybe gold farming.
Do you actually know the finances of these "cat people" you claim you know?
$0.30:h is $4.20 a 14h day, which is a meal. There are lots of Americans without any other income.
Including people who spend at least 14h a day picking up $0.05 cans in the streets to recycle. The rate I see many of them making that living even here in expensive, dangerous NYC could be something like 5-10 cans an hour, which is something like $0.25-0.50:h, probably a worse job than gold farming, with no guarantees of revenue.
Besides, the article says the farmer makes $1.25 an hour on $20 worth of gold, with a middleman. Since Americans can speak English, they should be able to better cut out the middleman, and compete for the $3. Maybe if Americans get $2 for each $20 hour, they can beat the Chinese, and the can recycling bottom of the ladder here.
Doesn't the UD format include both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD? What would have to change in "Blu-Ray" and "HD-DVD" players, like Xbox, PS3, and "player only" decks for one kind of UDF disc to play in the other's player? HW, or just firmware/software? Or maybe just a completely virtual license agreement?
Why don't broke-ass Americans steal these Chinese gold farmers' jobs? Does the Chinese government subsidize their life any more than US welfare and unemployment subsidize Americans'? And what about Mexicans? I see plenty of Mexicans working in Chinese restaurants instead of Chinese immigrant labor. Why don't they farm gold cheaper than Chinese labor does?
I explained exactly how it's not a worthwhile tradeoff when used precedentially. I'm sure it's no news to Republicans, like the person abusing the system here, that they can use small claims to cheaply accumulate corporatist precedents on the cheap, without appeals or details.
Instead of ignoring the defects in the system I pointed out, and hoping to use a decontextualized "polemic" to score some invalid point for some system gamer Republican someday, why don't you just admit that unappealable, nondiscursive small claims court decisions should not have precedential weight, even if the parties don't move them to the more expensive regular court? Is it polemic you want, or justice?
It was slaves and slavelike students/servants whose sphincters were available, not the powerful's (except in some extreme cases). Though the degree of Athenian matriarchy does speak of a pussocracy, those chicks were tough, inspired by Diana and primarily Athena. More of a tigrarchy.
Anonymous pervert Coward, stop thinking about my penis.
I expect the "insight" is where I know that Athenians and Apple people are tough, and that getting the basis of the article's analysis so wrong means the rest is worthless.
But then, I expect that you're one of those cartoon readers who were persuaded by its babble. You wouldn't recognize insight even if it defined the ratio of a circle's diameter to its radius.
Athens wasn't some pussocracy where "missteps [were] forgiven". It ruled a Greek empire by serial mass murder, like anyone else, even though it was eventually defeated by its infamously singleminded military rival Sparta. It invented the democracy on which ours is loosely based, featuring corrosive public (and private) debate that defined our arts of rhetoric and logic.
Apple isn't a pussocracy, either - smart people there survive up against Microsoft's monopoly by their wits, in the market, periodically revolutionizing it. Getting Athens and Apple so wrong discredits the rest of Mike Elgan's analysis. If you're going to argue from caricature analogy, only cartoons will be persuaded. If you're making such a discreditable attack on an absent target too busy to spend time debating your niche, you're a pussy.
SCO can waste $millions of public money suing IBM for years over less than zero, to produce an encyclopedia of "how not to sue IBM" from which IBM gets priceless protection.
IBM doesn't even pay its fair share of taxes to support that subsidy, like most US corporations.
But a blogger staking out the rights we'll all have to protection of our free speech for the rest of the century (and hopefully more) doesn't even produce even a record of how the judges might have made mistakes that thwart all our free expression. Because some penny-ante corporation strategically sued the blogger in a court that censors its own expression while suppressing someone else's.
Really what's wrong with this picture is that corporations are first class citizens, humans are second class, and we slaves must pay to protect them. Such a deal!
When I say "alpha means tested by only the dev team", I mean the proper discipline. Of course I don't mean the widely abusive practice.
I cited my experience in reply to an attack on my qualifications to say which discipline is used, what works. It's not just an impressive resume. It's a list of how the discipline has been tested in so many ways, with both successes and failures pointing to the right way.
There is a significant difference between the expectations of the dev team (Alpha), a sample of the users (Beta) and the general "public" (Release). Those expectations define the results almost as much as the content of the test. No other distinction has as much influence on the results. That's why the testing cycles are defined by them, and why they work. When they're used - when they're not, it works poorly, which is generally the case.
Producing software is a collaboration between groups of people, including the dev team, the testers, and the users - not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. But by keeping the testing defined by those lines, as much exclusivity as possible is obtained. That makes the process less self-selecting, more deductive. Which is the more easily controllable way to produce and process info. Which is why it works, and why mixing those groups fails. Which failure is reflected in arbitrary, rather than steadily progressing, degrees of quality labeled "Alpha/Beta" and even "Release", when the correct discipline is ignored.
The situation you describe is why it needs to be easy for parents to filter media for their kids. They should be able to look at a show (while watching, or in a preview, or in a listing) and say "not for kids", and let their set-top box (or home server, or subscribed website, etc) look at its detailed ratings breakdown, and filter out all shows that match (or are "worse").
It makes sense for Congress to require cable programming to include ratings on a 0-10 scale in several categories, then craft some standard ratings categories (like R-violence, PG-sex, G-smarmy) around them, purely informational. Which would be carried with the program's signal to the terminal, which terminal would include SW like a V-Chip or nannyware, keyed optionally to either the standard ratings or the specifics in the categories, and keyed to time of day and day of week. All of which restriction should be optional, with detailed config and "decision support" training on a dedicated cable channel.
Parents should take responsibility for their kids' viewing, and their own. Rather than dilute cable to the lowest common denominator, they should filter what they don't like. Making it easy for them will get them out of the way and stop them from hassling, and censoring, the rest of us.
Except that sometimes they don't pretend to be you, but abuse the identity info they got without authorization (or just using it in an unauthorized way), like marketing to you.
And it's different from other fraud, because the other fraud usually just damages the immediate target, in this case eg. a bank when they take a mortgage in your name. ID fraud attaches liability to the identity that follows it around, causing further damage later, that other fraud typically doesn't include. That should be legislated away, but it's not.
"Identity fraud" would be any false representation of one's identity, including a fake age ID with fictional birthdate info, or inventing an alter ego to marry multiple women. This is a special case, where the ID is being used unauthorized to represent oneself as another, which damages the other person through attaching liability to their identity, even if they don't notice (and still have their "stolen" ID). Which is a unique combination, which is why I say it's "ident piracy".
The point is that you didn't steal, or even use a copy of, someone's identity, you used (a copy of) their ID, their identification.
The "armed robbery" analogy isn't appropriate - there is no ambiguity (except in comic routines) about weapons vs limbs, or whether weapons were stolen vs used to steal. If this were "identitied robbery" turning into "identitied theft", then that could be analogous.
Identifications are used to steal - except when they're not, like just "guerrilla marketing" that targets you with unauthorized info tied to your identity. The "identity theft" crime is the enabler, like "weapon theft", that is then used for "identity fraud", where identifications are used as part of a technique for a fraudulent identity: the identified person, not the criminal. And of course the identified person still has their identity, so it wasn't really "stolen".
These distinctions are important, and lost, by the imprecise terms. That makes it harder to stop and deal with the crimes and their various damages. "Armed robbery" is a confusion, if at all, of an entirely different, and inconsequential, nature.
Since you don't complain about "ident", I assume you agree with that term.
"ID fraud", where "documents" (real or online) representing identity are used to pretend to be that person are a problem, as you mention.
There's other abuse of identity info that isn't fraud, when credentials are used to further invade the person's privacy. Even just for marketing to them.
There are read, write and execute abuses of that info. "Piracy" seems to cover them.
Cache's are cool, because they're automated to solve a common chip problem of faster access to more frequently used data, without any extra programming. But they're a pain, because they're a blob that extra programming can't do anything else with. If Intel could just add some programmatic access to core caches (including flushing and swap in/out to main or other-core memory), which otherwise could serve higher performance at some cycles, they'd solve a lot of these problems with little investment.
Conversely, chips like the Cell could include HW that makes their cores' local storage into caches.
No, we call it identity theft because some media weenie thought that sounded scarier than anything else they could think of. And because they couldn't think of anything else, since they think "ID" means a physical card in their wallet, and they never thought about "identity" before. They think "piracy" has to do with Windows and MP3s, and cant' think of what that could possibly have to do with your credit rating. Since they have the power to repeat, without understanding it, the term "identity theft" in their mass media machinery until it's in the language, we're stuck with it.
If only some geeks had gotten involved before they'd coined the term, they might have used one that informs instead of scares and distracts us. Besides, who would say "identity wants to be free"? And if there are people that stupid, who publish their passwords and housekey silhouettes on their free websites, they're excellent reps for an idea that anyone with a brain would reject, becuase they're so obviously stupid.
There's the person, who is the object. There's there identity, a social construct in the "real" (though abstract) world, which points at the person. There's their IDs, which are physical objects containing info, "credentials", that each point at the identity. There are online copies of those credentials that each point at the identity. There is a collection (even if not collected in a single container) of credentials that point at the identity.
"ID" is used to refer to a single atomic set of the credentials contained in the ID, both physical IDs and online IDs. The collection is the "ident" whose name I'm coining. Ident pirates use copies of credentials to make unauthorized (by the person) transactions on the ident of the person, whose identity is changed by the transactions.
Live cells make organic matter ("food") into polypeptides. Those fibers have many of the same properties as plastics, and many more sophisticated properties. Including many essential to life.
Why stop at plastics from sugars? We could use genetics to convert biomass into polypeptides to improve our energy (and chemical) efficiency, independence in superior materials. And since organisms make polypeptides from sunlight, water and CO2, switching from oil plastic to photosynthetic polypeptides could solve most of our oil problems at once.
I don't like how we call these crimes "identity theft". "Theft" especially implies that the owner no longer has their identity, which is certainly not the case - that loss could actually free them from the liabilities the "thief" is attaching to their old identity.
It's not really their identity that the thief steals. It's their ID, like traditional theft of a driver's license, credit card or copying a signature. We probably need a new word for the virtual representation of an individual, like "ident", that is 1: made of ID info and 2: points to the individual's abstract identity. IT people know that each level of pointer can be a different type, with different valid uses, and an entirely different set of data than the pointer or content to which it points. We should probably call the "online canonical identity" data their ident or something like that.
And so they're not really "thieves". They're like copyright violators, who leave the original intact in the hands of its owner, but dilute or discredit the original by unauthorized use. Maybe they're "ident pirates".
Conflating piracy with theft and identity with IDs with "idents" shows we don't have the first idea of how to cope with these crimes. We can't even distinguish between crimes and legitimate, if novel (and/or controversial) acts. We can't properly catch and correct the criminals. We can't control the content. We certainly can't allow those nuanced cases which benefit more than they cost.
It's time to get our story straight so we can look ourselves in the eye and know who we really are.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fascinated by how racist right-wingers denigrate the very word "folks" by using it to describe peoples they don't like (ie not their own). And how it's "leftists" who make the welfare state, not rightwingers who keep people down by offering them addictive welfare instead of funding education, healthcare, childcare, proper credit, crime prevention... Do you have as much to say about rightwingers pumping $billions into corporate welfare (greater than individual welfare) and other wealth redistribution primarily to Republican states and their crony corporations?
And how they know welfare recipients won't work for extra money if they can get away with it, like by recycling cans, hauling trash, babysitting, and maybe gold farming.
Do you actually know the finances of these "cat people" you claim you know?
Blah blah Anonymous content-free Coward blah blah blah.
$0.30:h is $4.20 a 14h day, which is a meal. There are lots of Americans without any other income.
Including people who spend at least 14h a day picking up $0.05 cans in the streets to recycle. The rate I see many of them making that living even here in expensive, dangerous NYC could be something like 5-10 cans an hour, which is something like $0.25-0.50:h, probably a worse job than gold farming, with no guarantees of revenue.
Besides, the article says the farmer makes $1.25 an hour on $20 worth of gold, with a middleman. Since Americans can speak English, they should be able to better cut out the middleman, and compete for the $3. Maybe if Americans get $2 for each $20 hour, they can beat the Chinese, and the can recycling bottom of the ladder here.
Doesn't the UD format include both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD? What would have to change in "Blu-Ray" and "HD-DVD" players, like Xbox, PS3, and "player only" decks for one kind of UDF disc to play in the other's player? HW, or just firmware/software? Or maybe just a completely virtual license agreement?
Millions of Playstation3s already have BluRay players in homes around the world, and they're only about a half-year old.
What's wrong with the PSP?
Why don't broke-ass Americans steal these Chinese gold farmers' jobs? Does the Chinese government subsidize their life any more than US welfare and unemployment subsidize Americans'? And what about Mexicans? I see plenty of Mexicans working in Chinese restaurants instead of Chinese immigrant labor. Why don't they farm gold cheaper than Chinese labor does?
No, it's not.
I explained exactly how it's not a worthwhile tradeoff when used precedentially. I'm sure it's no news to Republicans, like the person abusing the system here, that they can use small claims to cheaply accumulate corporatist precedents on the cheap, without appeals or details.
Instead of ignoring the defects in the system I pointed out, and hoping to use a decontextualized "polemic" to score some invalid point for some system gamer Republican someday, why don't you just admit that unappealable, nondiscursive small claims court decisions should not have precedential weight, even if the parties don't move them to the more expensive regular court? Is it polemic you want, or justice?
It was slaves and slavelike students/servants whose sphincters were available, not the powerful's (except in some extreme cases). Though the degree of Athenian matriarchy does speak of a pussocracy, those chicks were tough, inspired by Diana and primarily Athena. More of a tigrarchy.
Anonymous pervert Coward, stop thinking about my penis.
I expect the "insight" is where I know that Athenians and Apple people are tough, and that getting the basis of the article's analysis so wrong means the rest is worthless.
But then, I expect that you're one of those cartoon readers who were persuaded by its babble. You wouldn't recognize insight even if it defined the ratio of a circle's diameter to its radius.
How Athenian of you ;). May the gods be with you, or never notice your good fortune.
Athens wasn't some pussocracy where "missteps [were] forgiven". It ruled a Greek empire by serial mass murder, like anyone else, even though it was eventually defeated by its infamously singleminded military rival Sparta. It invented the democracy on which ours is loosely based, featuring corrosive public (and private) debate that defined our arts of rhetoric and logic.
Apple isn't a pussocracy, either - smart people there survive up against Microsoft's monopoly by their wits, in the market, periodically revolutionizing it. Getting Athens and Apple so wrong discredits the rest of Mike Elgan's analysis. If you're going to argue from caricature analogy, only cartoons will be persuaded. If you're making such a discreditable attack on an absent target too busy to spend time debating your niche, you're a pussy.
SCO can waste $millions of public money suing IBM for years over less than zero, to produce an encyclopedia of "how not to sue IBM" from which IBM gets priceless protection.
IBM doesn't even pay its fair share of taxes to support that subsidy, like most US corporations.
But a blogger staking out the rights we'll all have to protection of our free speech for the rest of the century (and hopefully more) doesn't even produce even a record of how the judges might have made mistakes that thwart all our free expression. Because some penny-ante corporation strategically sued the blogger in a court that censors its own expression while suppressing someone else's.
Really what's wrong with this picture is that corporations are first class citizens, humans are second class, and we slaves must pay to protect them. Such a deal!
When I say "alpha means tested by only the dev team", I mean the proper discipline. Of course I don't mean the widely abusive practice.
I cited my experience in reply to an attack on my qualifications to say which discipline is used, what works. It's not just an impressive resume. It's a list of how the discipline has been tested in so many ways, with both successes and failures pointing to the right way.
There is a significant difference between the expectations of the dev team (Alpha), a sample of the users (Beta) and the general "public" (Release). Those expectations define the results almost as much as the content of the test. No other distinction has as much influence on the results. That's why the testing cycles are defined by them, and why they work. When they're used - when they're not, it works poorly, which is generally the case.
Producing software is a collaboration between groups of people, including the dev team, the testers, and the users - not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. But by keeping the testing defined by those lines, as much exclusivity as possible is obtained. That makes the process less self-selecting, more deductive. Which is the more easily controllable way to produce and process info. Which is why it works, and why mixing those groups fails. Which failure is reflected in arbitrary, rather than steadily progressing, degrees of quality labeled "Alpha/Beta" and even "Release", when the correct discipline is ignored.
Yes, but what do you mean by "However"?
The situation you describe is why it needs to be easy for parents to filter media for their kids. They should be able to look at a show (while watching, or in a preview, or in a listing) and say "not for kids", and let their set-top box (or home server, or subscribed website, etc) look at its detailed ratings breakdown, and filter out all shows that match (or are "worse").
It makes sense for Congress to require cable programming to include ratings on a 0-10 scale in several categories, then craft some standard ratings categories (like R-violence, PG-sex, G-smarmy) around them, purely informational. Which would be carried with the program's signal to the terminal, which terminal would include SW like a V-Chip or nannyware, keyed optionally to either the standard ratings or the specifics in the categories, and keyed to time of day and day of week. All of which restriction should be optional, with detailed config and "decision support" training on a dedicated cable channel.
Parents should take responsibility for their kids' viewing, and their own. Rather than dilute cable to the lowest common denominator, they should filter what they don't like. Making it easy for them will get them out of the way and stop them from hassling, and censoring, the rest of us.
Except that sometimes they don't pretend to be you, but abuse the identity info they got without authorization (or just using it in an unauthorized way), like marketing to you.
And it's different from other fraud, because the other fraud usually just damages the immediate target, in this case eg. a bank when they take a mortgage in your name. ID fraud attaches liability to the identity that follows it around, causing further damage later, that other fraud typically doesn't include. That should be legislated away, but it's not.
"Identity fraud" would be any false representation of one's identity, including a fake age ID with fictional birthdate info, or inventing an alter ego to marry multiple women. This is a special case, where the ID is being used unauthorized to represent oneself as another, which damages the other person through attaching liability to their identity, even if they don't notice (and still have their "stolen" ID). Which is a unique combination, which is why I say it's "ident piracy".
The point is that you didn't steal, or even use a copy of, someone's identity, you used (a copy of) their ID, their identification.
The "armed robbery" analogy isn't appropriate - there is no ambiguity (except in comic routines) about weapons vs limbs, or whether weapons were stolen vs used to steal. If this were "identitied robbery" turning into "identitied theft", then that could be analogous.
Identifications are used to steal - except when they're not, like just "guerrilla marketing" that targets you with unauthorized info tied to your identity. The "identity theft" crime is the enabler, like "weapon theft", that is then used for "identity fraud", where identifications are used as part of a technique for a fraudulent identity: the identified person, not the criminal. And of course the identified person still has their identity, so it wasn't really "stolen".
These distinctions are important, and lost, by the imprecise terms. That makes it harder to stop and deal with the crimes and their various damages. "Armed robbery" is a confusion, if at all, of an entirely different, and inconsequential, nature.
Since you don't complain about "ident", I assume you agree with that term.
"ID fraud", where "documents" (real or online) representing identity are used to pretend to be that person are a problem, as you mention.
There's other abuse of identity info that isn't fraud, when credentials are used to further invade the person's privacy. Even just for marketing to them.
There are read, write and execute abuses of that info. "Piracy" seems to cover them.
Cache's are cool, because they're automated to solve a common chip problem of faster access to more frequently used data, without any extra programming. But they're a pain, because they're a blob that extra programming can't do anything else with. If Intel could just add some programmatic access to core caches (including flushing and swap in/out to main or other-core memory), which otherwise could serve higher performance at some cycles, they'd solve a lot of these problems with little investment.
Conversely, chips like the Cell could include HW that makes their cores' local storage into caches.
No, we call it identity theft because some media weenie thought that sounded scarier than anything else they could think of. And because they couldn't think of anything else, since they think "ID" means a physical card in their wallet, and they never thought about "identity" before. They think "piracy" has to do with Windows and MP3s, and cant' think of what that could possibly have to do with your credit rating. Since they have the power to repeat, without understanding it, the term "identity theft" in their mass media machinery until it's in the language, we're stuck with it.
If only some geeks had gotten involved before they'd coined the term, they might have used one that informs instead of scares and distracts us. Besides, who would say "identity wants to be free"? And if there are people that stupid, who publish their passwords and housekey silhouettes on their free websites, they're excellent reps for an idea that anyone with a brain would reject, becuase they're so obviously stupid.
There's the person, who is the object. There's there identity, a social construct in the "real" (though abstract) world, which points at the person. There's their IDs, which are physical objects containing info, "credentials", that each point at the identity. There are online copies of those credentials that each point at the identity. There is a collection (even if not collected in a single container) of credentials that point at the identity.
"ID" is used to refer to a single atomic set of the credentials contained in the ID, both physical IDs and online IDs. The collection is the "ident" whose name I'm coining. Ident pirates use copies of credentials to make unauthorized (by the person) transactions on the ident of the person, whose identity is changed by the transactions.
Live cells make organic matter ("food") into polypeptides. Those fibers have many of the same properties as plastics, and many more sophisticated properties. Including many essential to life.
Why stop at plastics from sugars? We could use genetics to convert biomass into polypeptides to improve our energy (and chemical) efficiency, independence in superior materials. And since organisms make polypeptides from sunlight, water and CO2, switching from oil plastic to photosynthetic polypeptides could solve most of our oil problems at once.
RoboOp for Senate '08. I hear there's lots of vacancies.
I don't like how we call these crimes "identity theft". "Theft" especially implies that the owner no longer has their identity, which is certainly not the case - that loss could actually free them from the liabilities the "thief" is attaching to their old identity.
It's not really their identity that the thief steals. It's their ID, like traditional theft of a driver's license, credit card or copying a signature. We probably need a new word for the virtual representation of an individual, like "ident", that is 1: made of ID info and 2: points to the individual's abstract identity. IT people know that each level of pointer can be a different type, with different valid uses, and an entirely different set of data than the pointer or content to which it points. We should probably call the "online canonical identity" data their ident or something like that.
And so they're not really "thieves". They're like copyright violators, who leave the original intact in the hands of its owner, but dilute or discredit the original by unauthorized use. Maybe they're "ident pirates".
Conflating piracy with theft and identity with IDs with "idents" shows we don't have the first idea of how to cope with these crimes. We can't even distinguish between crimes and legitimate, if novel (and/or controversial) acts. We can't properly catch and correct the criminals. We can't control the content. We certainly can't allow those nuanced cases which benefit more than they cost.
It's time to get our story straight so we can look ourselves in the eye and know who we really are.