You misread this. "Benefits" in the above statement means "benefits to AOL".
I don't disagree that this is what AOL means, but AOL said "benefits to as many consumers as possible." Which, while an interesting corporatist way of saying "we want to have more and more people identify IM technology with AOL", does leave the implication that AOL is committed to reaching as many people as possible.
I use AIM at work and I don't think I've ever seen a third party advertisement banner, but I've seen a ton of "Free AOL" ads. My brain may have just started filtering them all out....
Anyhoo, AOL is a company with a product the generates no profit. The only other time I've seen a company distribute products this way was in order to seize up the market with its own brand. Perhaps someone ran some numbers at AOL and decided it was time to change missions.
America Online is committed to extending the benefits of instant messaging technology to as many consumers as possible.
This wouldn't annoy me so much if they didn't keep flip-flopping on their strategy. I suppose that since AIM won't make them any money, they're focusing on brand dilution issues instead.
You could register a company and open the PO Box in the company's name. Frankly, I'm not certain it's worth worrying about the fact that you have to show ID to get services at the post office. But if you're really concerned, Playboy (I get it for the articles!) ran an article about becoming anonymous a couple of months ago. Bascially, it said something like:
1. Register your car to a company that you own, and have it registered in more than one state.
2. Have your mail go to a PO Box.
3. Have you bank accounts registered to a company or a trustee.
4. Don't use credit cards.
5. Register your utilities to someone else.
6. etc etc etc.
I'm not sure I'd want to deal with being that anonymous. After all, I AM a person with a credit history attached to me. I'm much more concerned about people misusing or getting ahold of information when I don't want them to than I am with that information being associated with me.
Sure, I'd rather not have everyone in the world know the contents of my mailbox, but I'd also rather have my mail go to a box that not just anyone can open (i.e. only someone with my ID).
The one hands down benefit is the inability for the business you bought something from to store your *valid* credit card number and expiration in their clear-text SQL Server database.
Or even worse, in a clear-text comma-delimited file sitting on a UNIX filesystem somewhere, then FTP'd daily to a fulfillment house, as my previous employer used to do. Working there really opened my eyes about the protection of personal/sensitive information.
But in reality, I believe that the technology as described allows for very easily circumvention of existing financial regulations.
I'm interested to hear how. I think you're basing this argument on the assumption that the accounts will be anonymous. My inference was that they'd be linked to your existing card number, which means they will not be anonymous, nor untraceable, nor undeclared.
Can you elaborate on the potential abuses you forsee?
Actually, I'm less concerned with my number being stolen online (most card companies will protect you and your liability is limited) than I am with privacy issues involved.
Suppose, for instance, that my ISP and Amazon.com decide to share their databases and I've paid for both services with the same credit card. Now both companies have access to more information about me that I'd have given up voluntarily.
Sure, the example is a benign and harmless one, but one could contrive all manner of potential issues once you consider all of the possiblities.
This is a good first step toward protecting the privacy of a consumer. More are needed, of course, but it's good to see Amex coming up with a decent idea like this.
It seems to me that what would make the most sense would be that every account (with a regular old account number) would be linked to a number of "sub-accounts" that would be generated on demand.
In short, the scheme seems to work like this:
1. The AMEX system would open the account, linking it to a master account.
2. The merchant then processes a transaction against the account.
3. The account is set up to automatically close after one transaction is posted.
4. The balance of that account is then transferred to the master account.
Disclaimer: I don't know that it works that way, it just my inferences based on the article.
The numbers could be linked to a master account by running the account number through some kind of one-way algorithm. Or maybe by picking them out of a pool of available numbers and assigning them in sequence.
In any event, it's a really interesting approach, although I'm afraid that the number of valid mod-10 account numbers will diminish quickly. Sort of like the way IP addresses have.
What I find MOST insteresting about this strategy is that it cuts down on an online merchant's ability to invade my privacy by using credit card numbers to link information in puchasing databases.
It is just too damn difficult for a working person to decide they want to become an engineer or programmer.
I just can't agree with this viewpoint. While it's true that there are some courses in the typical CS/IS curriculum that end up weeding out potential candidates from the program, it's not fair to blame the program for demanding excellence from it's students.
If you're working your way through school, it's going to take longer; that's just the way it is. If you've got a hard course, you can take a lighter load that semester to compensate.
A C++ class that has 20 hours per week of work does sound a bit excessive, but even so, it's going to produce students who are well versed in the use of the language.
Dedicated students should be rewarded with better grades. In my own experience, I worked full time, and went to school for about 12 hours a week (4 courses). I spent every night during the week studying and half of my weekend (every weekend) doing schoolwork. You get out what you put into your education. It's unfortunate that those of us who have to pay for it ourselves are at a slight disadvantage, but the hard work does pay off.
It's important to remember that college is not "training", it's learning how to learn more than anything else. Sure, colleges should use up to date technology and such. But their fundamental mission should be to teach one how to solve problems and learn new techniques, rather than the more specific, "How to code a system using EJB and Java."
Go to college to learn to think.
Go to training to learn specific tools and technologies.
Work experience is certainly important, but shrugging off the significance of a degree is setting a dangerous precedent. Someone who has earned a degree may not have the practical job experience they will eventually need, but they have the determination to see something through for 4 or (in my case) 7 years.
In my position, I interview a ton of candidates every month, and we get both high and low quality from all walks of life (college educated, self-taught, high-school grads/dropouts). The single most consistent pattern I find in excellent candidates is that they tend to have worked their way through school in a related field.
So yes, by all means, go right to work in the industry after high school. But go to night school if you can manage it. When I finished, I had not only a degree, but 5 years of relevant experience. At age 26, people are beating down my door trying to hire me, and I can demand an insane compensation package (beyond what a new graduate or someone with only experience could demand). And more importantly, if there were to be a paradigm shift in the industry, my career is safe.
Slashdot Mirror
You misread this. "Benefits" in the above statement means "benefits to AOL".
I don't disagree that this is what AOL means, but AOL said "benefits to as many consumers as possible." Which, while an interesting corporatist way of saying "we want to have more and more people identify IM technology with AOL", does leave the implication that AOL is committed to reaching as many people as possible.
I use AIM at work and I don't think I've ever seen a third party advertisement banner, but I've seen a ton of "Free AOL" ads. My brain may have just started filtering them all out....
Anyhoo, AOL is a company with a product the generates no profit. The only other time I've seen a company distribute products this way was in order to seize up the market with its own brand. Perhaps someone ran some numbers at AOL and decided it was time to change missions.
My $.02,
--Pete
From AOL's Open IM announcement site:
America Online is committed to extending the benefits of instant messaging technology to as many consumers as possible.
This wouldn't annoy me so much if they didn't keep flip-flopping on their strategy. I suppose that since AIM won't make them any money, they're focusing on brand dilution issues instead.
--Pete
You could register a company and open the PO Box in the company's name. Frankly, I'm not certain it's worth worrying about the fact that you have to show ID to get services at the post office. But if you're really concerned, Playboy (I get it for the articles!) ran an article about becoming anonymous a couple of months ago. Bascially, it said something like:
1. Register your car to a company that you own, and have it registered in more than one state.
2. Have your mail go to a PO Box.
3. Have you bank accounts registered to a company or a trustee.
4. Don't use credit cards.
5. Register your utilities to someone else.
6. etc etc etc.
I'm not sure I'd want to deal with being that anonymous. After all, I AM a person with a credit history attached to me. I'm much more concerned about people misusing or getting ahold of information when I don't want them to than I am with that information being associated with me.
Sure, I'd rather not have everyone in the world know the contents of my mailbox, but I'd also rather have my mail go to a box that not just anyone can open (i.e. only someone with my ID).
The one hands down benefit is the inability for the business you bought something from to store your *valid* credit card number and expiration in their clear-text SQL Server database.
Or even worse, in a clear-text comma-delimited file sitting on a UNIX filesystem somewhere, then FTP'd daily to a fulfillment house, as my previous employer used to do. Working there really opened my eyes about the protection of personal/sensitive information.
--Pete
But in reality, I believe that the technology as described allows for very easily circumvention of existing financial regulations.
I'm interested to hear how. I think you're basing this argument on the assumption that the accounts will be anonymous. My inference was that they'd be linked to your existing card number, which means they will not be anonymous, nor untraceable, nor undeclared.
Can you elaborate on the potential abuses you forsee?
Thanks,
--Pete
Actually, I'm less concerned with my number being stolen online (most card companies will protect you and your liability is limited) than I am with privacy issues involved.
Suppose, for instance, that my ISP and Amazon.com decide to share their databases and I've paid for both services with the same credit card. Now both companies have access to more information about me that I'd have given up voluntarily.
Sure, the example is a benign and harmless one, but one could contrive all manner of potential issues once you consider all of the possiblities.
This is a good first step toward protecting the privacy of a consumer. More are needed, of course, but it's good to see Amex coming up with a decent idea like this.
It seems to me that what would make the most sense would be that every account (with a regular old account number) would be linked to a number of "sub-accounts" that would be generated on demand.
In short, the scheme seems to work like this:
1. The AMEX system would open the account, linking it to a master account.
2. The merchant then processes a transaction against the account.
3. The account is set up to automatically close after one transaction is posted.
4. The balance of that account is then transferred to the master account.
Disclaimer: I don't know that it works that way, it just my inferences based on the article.
The numbers could be linked to a master account by running the account number through some kind of one-way algorithm. Or maybe by picking them out of a pool of available numbers and assigning them in sequence.
In any event, it's a really interesting approach, although I'm afraid that the number of valid mod-10 account numbers will diminish quickly. Sort of like the way IP addresses have.
What I find MOST insteresting about this strategy is that it cuts down on an online merchant's ability to invade my privacy by using credit card numbers to link information in puchasing databases.
It is just too damn difficult for a working person to decide they want to become an engineer or programmer.
I just can't agree with this viewpoint. While it's true that there are some courses in the typical CS/IS curriculum that end up weeding out potential candidates from the program, it's not fair to blame the program for demanding excellence from it's students.
If you're working your way through school, it's going to take longer; that's just the way it is. If you've got a hard course, you can take a lighter load that semester to compensate.
A C++ class that has 20 hours per week of work does sound a bit excessive, but even so, it's going to produce students who are well versed in the use of the language.
Dedicated students should be rewarded with better grades. In my own experience, I worked full time, and went to school for about 12 hours a week (4 courses). I spent every night during the week studying and half of my weekend (every weekend) doing schoolwork. You get out what you put into your education. It's unfortunate that those of us who have to pay for it ourselves are at a slight disadvantage, but the hard work does pay off.
It's important to remember that college is not "training", it's learning how to learn more than anything else. Sure, colleges should use up to date technology and such. But their fundamental mission should be to teach one how to solve problems and learn new techniques, rather than the more specific, "How to code a system using EJB and Java."
Go to college to learn to think.
Go to training to learn specific tools and technologies.
Work experience is certainly important, but shrugging off the significance of a degree is setting a dangerous precedent. Someone who has earned a degree may not have the practical job experience they will eventually need, but they have the determination to see something through for 4 or (in my case) 7 years.
In my position, I interview a ton of candidates every month, and we get both high and low quality from all walks of life (college educated, self-taught, high-school grads/dropouts). The single most consistent pattern I find in excellent candidates is that they tend to have worked their way through school in a related field.
So yes, by all means, go right to work in the industry after high school. But go to night school if you can manage it. When I finished, I had not only a degree, but 5 years of relevant experience. At age 26, people are beating down my door trying to hire me, and I can demand an insane compensation package (beyond what a new graduate or someone with only experience could demand). And more importantly, if there were to be a paradigm shift in the industry, my career is safe.