Most credit agencies in the US do the same thing, except that they take into account things like "shopping for a mortgage" or whatever, so if you have a lot of checks in the same period of time, they count it as one check.
If the agencies there don't then personally, if I was turned down for a loan because of my credit, and the credit report revealed that they had scored me low because I had shopped around for a house, and that was the only negative mark on the report, I'd sue the agency for defamation. It's probably the only way to get them to stop doing that, since they're otherwise completely insulated from the veracity of their report.
What you do is hold it like a right-handed person would, then pass the knife over to your left hand without turning it over. Now, the sharp edge is still down, and it's in your dominant hand.
I think he's talking about the bevelled edge of the knife, a lot of them are only bevelled on one side, and it's hard to cut straight with them if you're not holding them the "right way". Of course, even right-handed, I can't cut straight with these knives, so my knives are all double-bevelled.
Re:Consumers don't care about their privacy
on
The Death of Privacy
·
· Score: 1
barely consider privacy implications when purchasing software or signing up for services.
Sounds like an education problem to me. Maybe it's time to call for more "truth in labelling" laws, any company that collects such information from a consumer must put a label on all of their forms: "We do not guarantee that the information you provide will remain secret. The surgeon general has determined that the release of this information may lead to ruined credit, stolen houses, and terrorists using your name on their passport."
Why is it that the rabid left insists on making ad hominem attacks?
Because as you pointed out, in that case all the centrists just nod and move on, and the guy doesn't get the attention he wants. There's plenty of rabid left people that don't spend their days coming up with new insults for the Other Guys, it's just that they don't make news or become party leaders.
I'm not convinced. If I were engaged to a beautiful woman, I'd share my joy and tell everyone I knew, and probably quite a few strangers.
If it got broken off at the last second, I don't think the fact that I told the world I was engaged means that the world should automatically get a notice that she dumped me or whatever.
If it takes you 10x longer to design the content and the person viewing the page can find what they want 10x faster then is it really a net gain?
What if two people find what they want 10x faster? (Other than what would really happen: companies would switch from 10 words on an ad-filled page to 5 words each?) There are generally more content consumers than creators, both in the general sense as well as in the case of just about any field.
Is so so! You just have to redefine what people think when they think electronic voting. Instead of a monolithic device that displays the ballot, accepts the input, records the vote, and tallies the votes, by establishing a standard for the paper ballot, you enable companies to compete to sell a device that displays the ballot and accepts the input, that then prints out the standardized ballot. Then companies can compete to sell a device that sorts a stack of ballots based on their vote in a particular race. Finally companies can compete to sell the device that counts all the ballots in a stack.
If the first company is corrupt, the user will hopefully observe that they voted for the company's CEO for every position and the machine will get tossed out. If the second company is corrupt, the overseers just need to thumb through the stacks of sorted ballots like a flipbook and watch the line for that particular race to make sure they're all the same. As for the ballot counting machine, that company can be as corrupt as it wants to be, since unless it has some kind of +100000 button, it has no idea whose ballot it's currently counting, and the worst it can do is be inaccurate. And if mechanical bill counters are good enough for banks, they're good enough for my vote.
Because the software wasn't designed to handle perfectly regular text, since in a real scanning-from-paper situation that almost never comes up. Thus it treats every letter individually.
that's the price you pay for not being able to make it yourself.
Seems here that Sandisk was having no problem making it themselves.
Oh I get it, you think that this other company should just make money off of Sandisk's hard work. To each corporation according to their needs after all.
Agreed. I think having Google show a page reading "we're sorry but your ISP does not allow you to have full access to Google" or Amazon having a $1 line item reading "ISP Access Fee, contact 1-800-isptechsupport for details" on their bills will go a long way towards the so-called "free market" fixing this.
Dear god, whatever is wrong with teh rest of you is appearently CONTAGIUS!
Once you're infected, there is no cure, it just keeps getting worse;)
So the first trick is figuring out how to explain this in a manner that won't sound like Charlie Brown's teacher to Joe Average Citizen and the second trick is getting that message out to enough people that it'll make a difference.
I figured it out this morning. Use cellphones. Just about everyone knows that they have to pay for both incoming and outgoing calls, so just tell them "Network neutrality is how your cellphone works now. With it, you pay your cellphone company for calls you make, and calls you receive. Without network neutrality, you pay your cellphone company for calls you make, but then to receive a call, you pay the caller's phone company however much they tell you to pay. If you don't like how much they charge you, you can always get new friends until your old friends' contracts run out and they switch to a company that will charge you less to let you talk to them."
If they want to ask why the ISPs claim prices will go up with network neutrality, point out that until now, to convince people to sign up with them they've been lowering and lowering prices, and basically you are only paying for those "outgoing" minutes and nobody (at their ISPs level, yes I am aware of how the intarweb works, this is a simplified version for the masses) is paying for the "incoming" minutes - all those videos and stuff that they're getting. The ISPs now want to charge someone for getting those videos and songs off of iTunes.
If they say they'd rather have iTunes pay for it than pay for it themselves, point out that it'll mean that iTunes will either charge them more, or they'll just quit selling music to them until they switch to an ISP that won't charge iTunes. If they say they'll switch to a different music store, point out that their ISP will charge them too.
What if their current pricing and usage model doesn't support that? What happens when $50/month for 5Mbps service no longer covers their costs? What about DSL providers whose operations may largely be supported by telephone business?
Wow, you mean those contracts that ISPs use to lock customers into year(s) of service are now locking service providers into providing that service?
Here: . <--- world's smallest violin and all that crap.
Look, this has been "the future" for about a decade. If AT&T and other ISPs were too stupid to read the writing on the wall (especially when the phone companies were the ones who wrote it there in the first place when they started making noise about using their networks to compete with cable oh so many years ago) then they should just roll over and die, and let companies who can figure out what they're doing take over.
Meanwhile, let's turn off network neutrality for cellphones and see how people like that. I mean, it's bad enough when you have to pay your own cellphone provider for incoming calls, but now you'll have to pay the caller's telephone company at a rate they set (without any input from you) too. Someone charging you $10 a minute to receive calls from their telephone company? Tough! That's why there's competition, so that you can get new friends who use a different phone company! Besides, you can always look at the number and see where they're calling from and push the big red button on your phone if you don't want to pay.
And that's what the fear in this network neutrality argument is about. Forget about slowing down my google searches, what is going to happen when google, amazon, apple, akamai, and others start pushing the big red button on connections to them?
Nah, in this case it doesn't break the internet, it only breaks Earthlink's net, and only then software that expects it to work "correctly" which is probably only used by 5% of their customers. If you're going to do this, you might as well do it at the ISP level, since then people can switch to the other ISP (assuming that both cable and dsl don't start doing this), and the ISPs don't have it forced on them by some higher level.
No, no it's not. It's needed for a credit check from lazy-assed credit companies who can't be bothered to do the legwork to actually identify you.
That's why we have this identity theft problem in the first place. If we threw away the SSN and replaced it with any other identifier, the exact same thing would happen. If we replaced it with biometric ID cards, the exact same thing would happen (it would just be a little more work. You might be [cardandathumbprint] in person, but in the computer you're still going to be card #555-55-5555).
If consumers started storming equifax and all these other credit companies' offices with pitchforks and torches for giving away their credit over such a lousy identifier, it'd get fixed. They would figure out a real way to identify the people. As it is, nobody even thinks "gee why did TransUnion tell MegaCorp that Mr. 555-55-5555 can handle taking a out a $422523523 loan without even making sure they were talking about the right person?"
Hell, if the debt laws would be fixed so that companies who fucked up and issued credit cards or loans to the wrong people were saddled with the bad debt writeoffs instead of being allowed to send collectors after the real person, they'd be the first in line to kick down doors and get this shit fixed.
How could you possibly illegalize simulated child porn in the form of two young-looking adults of legal age?
Easy, we just kill off all the flat chested women. If men see flat-chested women, they will obviously be driven to screw little girls since they're incapable of telling them apart. If you don't have a C cup by your 18th birthday, off you go to the gas chamber to save our children.
Of course, before we start selecting for early bloomers, we'll have to kill off all the girls that develop a C cup before their 16th birthday, just to make sure the men don't get any "bad ideas". Eventually we'll evolve into a species that develops all sexual characteristics right at the age of consent, and it will finally cease to be an arbitrary number. Until it gets raised again, anyways.
Does this person not realise that possession of an unlicensed firearm
Here's some questions for you: How do you get arrested for possession of an unlicensed firearm? How do you get arrested for possession of drugs? The vast majority of gun arrests are from people being arrested for something else, and the cop finds a gun on them. The same for drugs. Without any special enforcement, all this pornography law will do is tack another 5 years onto the sentence for that nice quiet guy who nobody thought would ever do such a thing, since it's unlikely that anyone knew he had "violent porn" until after his arrest and the cops and media went through his belongings looking for anything to blame other than the guy himself.
Of course let's not go into "what is violent porn", all it takes is one prude to decide that all porn is violent because no woman would participate in pornography of their own free will and must therefore be coerced to start hauling everyone in.
the same principle applies just as much to your information as it does to a CD. Either "sharing" is OK, or it's not
Wake me up when downloading a track from emule gets thousands of dollars in creditcard debt taken out in the artist's name by kids on IRC, illegal immigrants getting forged licenses with the label president's drivers license number or getting a job using their SSN, or terrorists buying an internet connection in their name and using it to plan their next bombing run.
Until then, your attempt to claim that these are equal and should be treated as such are pathetically dishonest.
I agree, I'd definately look into using this to try out some new bands by listening to a few songs before I decide to buy their cds which I can do whatever I want with.
Now the question is, how much of my identity do I have to hand over to these people for their inevitable laptop theft so that they can target their ads, and are they going to let me listen to whole albums, or just the best songs that get heavy rotation on the radio anyway?
Sorry, but an AC started the whole thread, so that's the way I deal with it.
I admit it, I was trolling, but that doesn't make it any less true. There is a loud (if not large) group of people that believe that even abortions necessary to save the life of the mother should be banned. There is a loud (if not large, or possibly even the same) group of people claiming that we should not give the HPV vaccine out because it would "encourage sex". By their statements, these people apparently do believe that it's OK to kill a few dozen women if that is what it takes to stamp out abortions/promiscuity. And by and large, I have seen very few people from these groups act the least bit apologetic for this. To them, it's "just a miniscule fraction of a percent," and suddenly the eclamptic women who die from paralysis and respiratory failure, or the women who contract HPV from partners who aren't as faithful as they are and then go on to develop malignant cancers don't matter anymore.
Show me a telephone number which you can dial and that, by the simple act of connection, results in the infiltration of your company's office
Hello, New York Times? Get me your best reporter, I've got a memo in my hands that outlines SuperMegaCorp's plans to test drugs on people by lacing their subsidiary's canned foods.
Slashdot Mirror
People from Kansas are Kansans.
Most credit agencies in the US do the same thing, except that they take into account things like "shopping for a mortgage" or whatever, so if you have a lot of checks in the same period of time, they count it as one check.
If the agencies there don't then personally, if I was turned down for a loan because of my credit, and the credit report revealed that they had scored me low because I had shopped around for a house, and that was the only negative mark on the report, I'd sue the agency for defamation. It's probably the only way to get them to stop doing that, since they're otherwise completely insulated from the veracity of their report.
only 28.3 percent of the surveyed debtors themselves agreed with the authors that their bankruptcy was substantially caused by "illness or injury."
Ah, only 28.3%. That's OK then, fuck them. They can rot in the streets with their cancers and their sick children.
Once you've reduced it to such a simple statistic, it's easy to make that choice, isn't it?
What you do is hold it like a right-handed person would, then pass the knife over to your left hand without turning it over. Now, the sharp edge is still down, and it's in your dominant hand.
I think he's talking about the bevelled edge of the knife, a lot of them are only bevelled on one side, and it's hard to cut straight with them if you're not holding them the "right way". Of course, even right-handed, I can't cut straight with these knives, so my knives are all double-bevelled.
barely consider privacy implications when purchasing software or signing up for services.
Sounds like an education problem to me. Maybe it's time to call for more "truth in labelling" laws, any company that collects such information from a consumer must put a label on all of their forms: "We do not guarantee that the information you provide will remain secret. The surgeon general has determined that the release of this information may lead to ruined credit, stolen houses, and terrorists using your name on their passport."
Why is it that the rabid left insists on making ad hominem attacks?
;)
Because as you pointed out, in that case all the centrists just nod and move on, and the guy doesn't get the attention he wants. There's plenty of rabid left people that don't spend their days coming up with new insults for the Other Guys, it's just that they don't make news or become party leaders.
Besides, ad hominem attacks are fun
I'm not convinced. If I were engaged to a beautiful woman, I'd share my joy and tell everyone I knew, and probably quite a few strangers.
If it got broken off at the last second, I don't think the fact that I told the world I was engaged means that the world should automatically get a notice that she dumped me or whatever.
If it takes you 10x longer to design the content and the person viewing the page can find what they want 10x faster then is it really a net gain?
What if two people find what they want 10x faster? (Other than what would really happen: companies would switch from 10 words on an ad-filled page to 5 words each?) There are generally more content consumers than creators, both in the general sense as well as in the case of just about any field.
Not so.
Is so so! You just have to redefine what people think when they think electronic voting. Instead of a monolithic device that displays the ballot, accepts the input, records the vote, and tallies the votes, by establishing a standard for the paper ballot, you enable companies to compete to sell a device that displays the ballot and accepts the input, that then prints out the standardized ballot. Then companies can compete to sell a device that sorts a stack of ballots based on their vote in a particular race. Finally companies can compete to sell the device that counts all the ballots in a stack.
If the first company is corrupt, the user will hopefully observe that they voted for the company's CEO for every position and the machine will get tossed out. If the second company is corrupt, the overseers just need to thumb through the stacks of sorted ballots like a flipbook and watch the line for that particular race to make sure they're all the same. As for the ballot counting machine, that company can be as corrupt as it wants to be, since unless it has some kind of +100000 button, it has no idea whose ballot it's currently counting, and the worst it can do is be inaccurate. And if mechanical bill counters are good enough for banks, they're good enough for my vote.
Because the software wasn't designed to handle perfectly regular text, since in a real scanning-from-paper situation that almost never comes up. Thus it treats every letter individually.
that's the price you pay for not being able to make it yourself.
Seems here that Sandisk was having no problem making it themselves.
Oh I get it, you think that this other company should just make money off of Sandisk's hard work. To each corporation according to their needs after all.
Agreed. I think having Google show a page reading "we're sorry but your ISP does not allow you to have full access to Google" or Amazon having a $1 line item reading "ISP Access Fee, contact 1-800-isptechsupport for details" on their bills will go a long way towards the so-called "free market" fixing this.
;)
Dear god, whatever is wrong with teh rest of you is appearently CONTAGIUS!
Once you're infected, there is no cure, it just keeps getting worse
So the first trick is figuring out how to explain this in a manner that won't sound like Charlie Brown's teacher to Joe Average Citizen and the second trick is getting that message out to enough people that it'll make a difference.
I figured it out this morning. Use cellphones. Just about everyone knows that they have to pay for both incoming and outgoing calls, so just tell them "Network neutrality is how your cellphone works now. With it, you pay your cellphone company for calls you make, and calls you receive. Without network neutrality, you pay your cellphone company for calls you make, but then to receive a call, you pay the caller's phone company however much they tell you to pay. If you don't like how much they charge you, you can always get new friends until your old friends' contracts run out and they switch to a company that will charge you less to let you talk to them."
If they want to ask why the ISPs claim prices will go up with network neutrality, point out that until now, to convince people to sign up with them they've been lowering and lowering prices, and basically you are only paying for those "outgoing" minutes and nobody (at their ISPs level, yes I am aware of how the intarweb works, this is a simplified version for the masses) is paying for the "incoming" minutes - all those videos and stuff that they're getting. The ISPs now want to charge someone for getting those videos and songs off of iTunes.
If they say they'd rather have iTunes pay for it than pay for it themselves, point out that it'll mean that iTunes will either charge them more, or they'll just quit selling music to them until they switch to an ISP that won't charge iTunes. If they say they'll switch to a different music store, point out that their ISP will charge them too.
What if their current pricing and usage model doesn't support that?
What happens when $50/month for 5Mbps service no longer covers their costs?
What about DSL providers whose operations may largely be supported by telephone business?
Wow, you mean those contracts that ISPs use to lock customers into year(s) of service are now locking service providers into providing that service?
Here: . <--- world's smallest violin and all that crap.
Look, this has been "the future" for about a decade. If AT&T and other ISPs were too stupid to read the writing on the wall (especially when the phone companies were the ones who wrote it there in the first place when they started making noise about using their networks to compete with cable oh so many years ago) then they should just roll over and die, and let companies who can figure out what they're doing take over.
Meanwhile, let's turn off network neutrality for cellphones and see how people like that. I mean, it's bad enough when you have to pay your own cellphone provider for incoming calls, but now you'll have to pay the caller's telephone company at a rate they set (without any input from you) too. Someone charging you $10 a minute to receive calls from their telephone company? Tough! That's why there's competition, so that you can get new friends who use a different phone company! Besides, you can always look at the number and see where they're calling from and push the big red button on your phone if you don't want to pay.
And that's what the fear in this network neutrality argument is about. Forget about slowing down my google searches, what is going to happen when google, amazon, apple, akamai, and others start pushing the big red button on connections to them?
Nah, in this case it doesn't break the internet, it only breaks Earthlink's net, and only then software that expects it to work "correctly" which is probably only used by 5% of their customers. If you're going to do this, you might as well do it at the ISP level, since then people can switch to the other ISP (assuming that both cable and dsl don't start doing this), and the ISPs don't have it forced on them by some higher level.
An SSN number is needed for a credit check.
No, no it's not. It's needed for a credit check from lazy-assed credit companies who can't be bothered to do the legwork to actually identify you.
That's why we have this identity theft problem in the first place. If we threw away the SSN and replaced it with any other identifier, the exact same thing would happen. If we replaced it with biometric ID cards, the exact same thing would happen (it would just be a little more work. You might be [cardandathumbprint] in person, but in the computer you're still going to be card #555-55-5555).
If consumers started storming equifax and all these other credit companies' offices with pitchforks and torches for giving away their credit over such a lousy identifier, it'd get fixed. They would figure out a real way to identify the people. As it is, nobody even thinks "gee why did TransUnion tell MegaCorp that Mr. 555-55-5555 can handle taking a out a $422523523 loan without even making sure they were talking about the right person?"
Hell, if the debt laws would be fixed so that companies who fucked up and issued credit cards or loans to the wrong people were saddled with the bad debt writeoffs instead of being allowed to send collectors after the real person, they'd be the first in line to kick down doors and get this shit fixed.
How could you possibly illegalize simulated child porn in the form of two young-looking adults of legal age?
Easy, we just kill off all the flat chested women. If men see flat-chested women, they will obviously be driven to screw little girls since they're incapable of telling them apart. If you don't have a C cup by your 18th birthday, off you go to the gas chamber to save our children.
Of course, before we start selecting for early bloomers, we'll have to kill off all the girls that develop a C cup before their 16th birthday, just to make sure the men don't get any "bad ideas". Eventually we'll evolve into a species that develops all sexual characteristics right at the age of consent, and it will finally cease to be an arbitrary number. Until it gets raised again, anyways.
And to lower the speed limit on highways.
I guess you're trying to hammer home the "both ways" part there?
obviously has never been there...still not that effective.
So what you're saying is that the smear doesn't work on all 300 people who have ever been to that island?
Does this person not realise that possession of an unlicensed firearm
Here's some questions for you: How do you get arrested for possession of an unlicensed firearm? How do you get arrested for possession of drugs? The vast majority of gun arrests are from people being arrested for something else, and the cop finds a gun on them. The same for drugs. Without any special enforcement, all this pornography law will do is tack another 5 years onto the sentence for that nice quiet guy who nobody thought would ever do such a thing, since it's unlikely that anyone knew he had "violent porn" until after his arrest and the cops and media went through his belongings looking for anything to blame other than the guy himself.
Of course let's not go into "what is violent porn", all it takes is one prude to decide that all porn is violent because no woman would participate in pornography of their own free will and must therefore be coerced to start hauling everyone in.
the same principle applies just as much to your information as it does to a CD. Either "sharing" is OK, or it's not
Wake me up when downloading a track from emule gets thousands of dollars in creditcard debt taken out in the artist's name by kids on IRC, illegal immigrants getting forged licenses with the label president's drivers license number or getting a job using their SSN, or terrorists buying an internet connection in their name and using it to plan their next bombing run.
Until then, your attempt to claim that these are equal and should be treated as such are pathetically dishonest.
Which isn't a bad idea, acutally...
I agree, I'd definately look into using this to try out some new bands by listening to a few songs before I decide to buy their cds which I can do whatever I want with.
Now the question is, how much of my identity do I have to hand over to these people for their inevitable laptop theft so that they can target their ads, and are they going to let me listen to whole albums, or just the best songs that get heavy rotation on the radio anyway?
Sorry, but an AC started the whole thread, so that's the way I deal with it.
I admit it, I was trolling, but that doesn't make it any less true. There is a loud (if not large) group of people that believe that even abortions necessary to save the life of the mother should be banned. There is a loud (if not large, or possibly even the same) group of people claiming that we should not give the HPV vaccine out because it would "encourage sex". By their statements, these people apparently do believe that it's OK to kill a few dozen women if that is what it takes to stamp out abortions/promiscuity. And by and large, I have seen very few people from these groups act the least bit apologetic for this. To them, it's "just a miniscule fraction of a percent," and suddenly the eclamptic women who die from paralysis and respiratory failure, or the women who contract HPV from partners who aren't as faithful as they are and then go on to develop malignant cancers don't matter anymore.
You call that paranoid? I call that "too much trust in the cops". Try living in Houston. It ain't paranoia when they ARE out to get you.
Show me a telephone number which you can dial and that, by the simple act of connection, results in the infiltration of your company's office
Hello, New York Times? Get me your best reporter, I've got a memo in my hands that outlines SuperMegaCorp's plans to test drugs on people by lacing their subsidiary's canned foods.