The requirement is there to help the corporations, not their users.
The really silly part is that they make such half-hearted attempts to enforce it. A simple 1 cent charge on a Credit Card (or a $10 charge that buys you a $10 credit at your choice of Amazon/Fandango/Barnes & Nobles/other corporate sponsors) would do 99% of the work of verifying identity. But they don't want to actually do this, because they are afraid it might turn off 1% of users.
What they don't understand is that at least 5% of users are more turned off by the requirement to use the real name - even if they don't really check it.
LawnBott LB3510 costs about $4,000. Assuming your time is worth $50/hour, at 3 hours a week that means you are spending $150 a week. You make your money back in 6 months.
You make a great argument for ALLOWING people to give real names, but a totally incompetent one for requiring real names.
As for the Ad hominem attack on my social ties, (irrelevant and just put in to insult me - don't worry, I can take it). I tell you three things:
1. Any person that thinks the internet is a good way to make strong social ties needs to get OUT a lot more. Social Ties are built in the real world, not online.
2. If you can't commit the energy to identify them then you are NOT really interested in those people
Please site the study for your totally unsupported claim that the vast majority of computer users agree with your rather foolish argument. The main argument I have heard to join Google+ is "Its not Facebook", which indicates most people agree with me, not you.
People join FaceBook/Google+ DESPITE the privacy invasions, not the because of them.
That is, there is a place (and a reason) to use real names on line. It reduces flame wars etc.
On the other hand, there are MANY MANY MORE reasons to not use real names.
The question is, which is the bigger market size?
Which do people want? From what I can tell, the far majority of people do not want to use real names.
Frankly, if you want to make a forum safe for kids, then yes, real names would be appropriate. But I am not a child. I can take an insult. My privacy and protection is far more important to me, and to most people.
The idea to use real names for a general forum for use by everyone is an insane idea. Companies and corporations want it, people don't. Build a website based on what the users want, not the corporations, governments. etc.
I would love to use Google+ - if they let me keep my privacy. I won't use it as is.
1. Deni-ability. No, we did not tell them to cross over into Cambodia.
2. Cheaper. Real soldiers tend to cost more - because we pay for their training, long term support, etc.
3. Lost lives are civilians, not military. Who cares if a merc dies, but congressman have to care about American soldiers.
Of those three reasons, only Deniability applies to cyber soldiers. Civilian firms tend to be more expensive not less and cyber soldiers don't die, they just get 'schooled'.
There is one possible extra benefit for cyber-mercs. That is getting a higher quality coder. But the problem there is that the government can afford certain more expensive equipment than private firms. Throw in patriotism and the top coders might prefer a government salary to being a merc.
There are MANY, MANY men that want sex but can not convince women to have it with them. For example, extremely shy guys that can barely even talk to a woman. Or those with,assive disfigurement (fire scars, cancerous tumors, etc. Or those with mild autism.
Yes, if you are married then chances are you are paying them to go away.
But if you are single and incapable of dating, then you are paying for the sex.
In large part because pretending we can prevent it is stupid.
The entire thing about being online is that text communication does not include any identifiable clues. You can't see the face, you can't hear the voice, you can't even measure the timing of the key strikes.
Worse, it is very easy to get and use someone else's password. (A password dictionary of the top 100 passwords will work in at least 5% of cases).
To require real identification would involve a massive change in technology that would unnecessarily invade a lot of privacy for things NOT done on social networks.
The internet is designed for privacy, not security. Pretending otherwise just makes you look like a fool
That would be fine - if cars were required to provide zero pollution. I always hate the idiots that try to cheat by ignoring the costs that OTHER people pay for your purchases.
The idea behind this article is that, people are willing to pay $50+ in game, IF THE GAME IS FREE TO DOWNLOAD AND USE
In other words, it is a micro-payment scheme. Give the main game away for free (like say Bloons, or Farmville), then charge people for add-ons.
The 95% of people that want the game but won't pay, get what they want. A playable game for free.
The 5% of people willing to pay for extra's, will pay a lot of money for them, far exceeding the small payments they could have gotten if they charged to download/continued use of the game.
They concentrate on the incendiary ideas, are poorly written, and do a horrible job of communicating.
For example, it ignores the case where there are two contradictory ideas, each held by more than 10% . (Liberal and Conservative politics for example)
And of course to become widely adopted the idea must grow past 10%. You can go from 9% to 90% without passing 10%.
A better way to write the story would have been, either one of the following (not sure which is true, as the article did not make it clear):
1) Unshakable belief grows slowly, no matter how zealous it's proponents are, up until it hits 10% of the population. Then, it it is not opposed by another unshakable belief, the growth will expand exponentially till it exceeds 50%.
or
2) Unshakable beliefs either spread very quickly from the beginning, quickly surpassing 10% and becomeing 50% or greater, or grow at a slow rate, never surpassing 10% of the population.
Either one of those two statements could be the truth. The article failed to explain which was true, instead concentrating on the stupid and obviously false statement that if an unshakable idea is held by more than 10% it will quickly become accepted by over 50%.
Not quite. According to Slashdot:
Downloading music is a copyright violation, as per the law. Not theft. We then proclaim that the copyright laws are unethical. Often the issue in question is a contract violation with civil, not criminal penalties.
BUT
Getting someone's browser history is an invasion of privacy (Felony)
Walking on the sidewalk is risky - you could get hit by an errant car.
If you try to make anything perfectly safe, you will FAIL. The trick is to identify a reasonable amount of risk and allow that.
I agree that playgrounds should have rubber padding, but I see no reason to eliminate the ability to hang from a metal bar.
As I said above (in response to another poster), this means that when you log in, it should show you when you last logged in and how many attempts were made over the past day/week.
Your argument is to alert the owner, not to force the owner to do more make-work.
As I said above (in response to another poster), this means that when you log in, it should show you when you last logged in and how many times over the past day/week.
Your argument is to alert the owner, not to force the owner to do more make-work.
For example, if you want to get statistics on sex, it is pretty much impossible to do so without going through a ton of inappropriate links.
This is just the most obvious case of a standard problem of "overshadowing". Often the thing you want is over-shadowed by many other people looking for a similar issue. If you want to get reviews of a website that is optimizing search engines, often you get sent directly to various pages on that website.
Far better than simply outlawing "you can't use your username as your password" Same goes for the silly "can't use the last password as your current one".
I never understood the reasoning behind the time based password change. No one expects people to get a new key every six months for their home lock. No one expects someone to get a new ATM card every 6 months.
Good passwords are worth keeping for years - as long as they actually are a good password. Are you supposed to be worried that you have given out your old password and forgotten about doing it?
You can't stop an idiot from giving away his password. But you don't have to screw it up for the rest of us to help out the idiot.
The heart of the Fifth amendment was to stop governments from torturing people.
We are not allowed to punish people for refusing to incriminate themselves because that...
We did this for multiple reasons, but they are irrelevant - it is the LAW. Why we did this is not important, what the law says is.
One of the big questions is what if someone says I forgot my password
Before you accuse them of lying, remember how many times you personally have forgotten a password. I have forgotten multiple passwords, including email, work, financial accounts, etc.
Passwords are protected by the 5ifth amendment because the government can not prove someone has NOT forgotten it.
You design computers to work around human beings, you don't expect human beings to learn to work around computer limitations.
Computers have keyboards not a single switch labelled "0" and "1" for humans to control using binary.
Humans are curious. We need to use UBS devices. It is not that hard to require confirmation before running any program from a flash drive. It is not that hard to sandbox everything and by default (deactivate-able) run a virus check on any new drives - flash, hard, or DVD, CD, or what have your.
Build technology AROUND the human, don't try to change the human to fit the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
The requirement is there to help the corporations, not their users.
The really silly part is that they make such half-hearted attempts to enforce it. A simple 1 cent charge on a Credit Card (or a $10 charge that buys you a $10 credit at your choice of Amazon/Fandango/Barnes & Nobles/other corporate sponsors) would do 99% of the work of verifying identity. But they don't want to actually do this, because they are afraid it might turn off 1% of users.
What they don't understand is that at least 5% of users are more turned off by the requirement to use the real name - even if they don't really check it.
LawnBott LB3510 costs about $4,000. Assuming your time is worth $50/hour, at 3 hours a week that means you are spending $150 a week. You make your money back in 6 months.
You curse, you can be kicked off and you can't get back on because you have to use your real name.
As for the stranger, if people have to use the real name then the stranger leaves a record, enabling them to EASILY be caught.
As for the Ad hominem attack on my social ties, (irrelevant and just put in to insult me - don't worry, I can take it). I tell you three things: 1. Any person that thinks the internet is a good way to make strong social ties needs to get OUT a lot more. Social Ties are built in the real world, not online.
2. If you can't commit the energy to identify them then you are NOT really interested in those people
Please site the study for your totally unsupported claim that the vast majority of computer users agree with your rather foolish argument. The main argument I have heard to join Google+ is "Its not Facebook", which indicates most people agree with me, not you.
People join FaceBook/Google+ DESPITE the privacy invasions, not the because of them.
On the other hand, there are MANY MANY MORE reasons to not use real names.
The question is, which is the bigger market size? Which do people want? From what I can tell, the far majority of people do not want to use real names.
Frankly, if you want to make a forum safe for kids, then yes, real names would be appropriate. But I am not a child. I can take an insult. My privacy and protection is far more important to me, and to most people.
The idea to use real names for a general forum for use by everyone is an insane idea. Companies and corporations want it, people don't. Build a website based on what the users want, not the corporations, governments. etc.
I would love to use Google+ - if they let me keep my privacy. I won't use it as is.
2. Cheaper. Real soldiers tend to cost more - because we pay for their training, long term support, etc.
3. Lost lives are civilians, not military. Who cares if a merc dies, but congressman have to care about American soldiers.
Of those three reasons, only Deniability applies to cyber soldiers. Civilian firms tend to be more expensive not less and cyber soldiers don't die, they just get 'schooled'.
There is one possible extra benefit for cyber-mercs. That is getting a higher quality coder. But the problem there is that the government can afford certain more expensive equipment than private firms. Throw in patriotism and the top coders might prefer a government salary to being a merc.
There are MANY, MANY men that want sex but can not convince women to have it with them. For example, extremely shy guys that can barely even talk to a woman. Or those with ,assive disfigurement (fire scars, cancerous tumors, etc. Or those with mild autism.
Yes, if you are married then chances are you are paying them to go away.
But if you are single and incapable of dating, then you are paying for the sex.
The entire thing about being online is that text communication does not include any identifiable clues. You can't see the face, you can't hear the voice, you can't even measure the timing of the key strikes.
Worse, it is very easy to get and use someone else's password. (A password dictionary of the top 100 passwords will work in at least 5% of cases).
To require real identification would involve a massive change in technology that would unnecessarily invade a lot of privacy for things NOT done on social networks.
The internet is designed for privacy, not security. Pretending otherwise just makes you look like a fool
That would be fine - if cars were required to provide zero pollution. I always hate the idiots that try to cheat by ignoring the costs that OTHER people pay for your purchases.
In other words, it is a micro-payment scheme. Give the main game away for free (like say Bloons, or Farmville), then charge people for add-ons.
The 95% of people that want the game but won't pay, get what they want. A playable game for free.
The 5% of people willing to pay for extra's, will pay a lot of money for them, far exceeding the small payments they could have gotten if they charged to download/continued use of the game.
Option 1) meant to say "IF it is not opposed". not it it.
For example, it ignores the case where there are two contradictory ideas, each held by more than 10% . (Liberal and Conservative politics for example)
And of course to become widely adopted the idea must grow past 10%. You can go from 9% to 90% without passing 10%.
A better way to write the story would have been, either one of the following (not sure which is true, as the article did not make it clear):
1) Unshakable belief grows slowly, no matter how zealous it's proponents are, up until it hits 10% of the population. Then, it it is not opposed by another unshakable belief, the growth will expand exponentially till it exceeds 50%.
or
2) Unshakable beliefs either spread very quickly from the beginning, quickly surpassing 10% and becomeing 50% or greater, or grow at a slow rate, never surpassing 10% of the population.
Either one of those two statements could be the truth. The article failed to explain which was true, instead concentrating on the stupid and obviously false statement that if an unshakable idea is held by more than 10% it will quickly become accepted by over 50%.
Not quite. According to Slashdot: Downloading music is a copyright violation, as per the law. Not theft. We then proclaim that the copyright laws are unethical. Often the issue in question is a contract violation with civil, not criminal penalties. BUT Getting someone's browser history is an invasion of privacy (Felony)
As per the article, web histories count as identifiable information. So collecting them counts as gathering personally identifiable information.
Walking on the sidewalk is risky - you could get hit by an errant car. If you try to make anything perfectly safe, you will FAIL. The trick is to identify a reasonable amount of risk and allow that. I agree that playgrounds should have rubber padding, but I see no reason to eliminate the ability to hang from a metal bar.
So that would be Army, (Navy +Marines), and Air Force.
As for the Coast Guard, I think everyone would agree with you that they do not need a major data center.
Your argument is to alert the owner, not to force the owner to do more make-work.
Your argument is to alert the owner, not to force the owner to do more make-work.
for listing how many times in the past 24 hours someone tried to log in.
You have a crappy argument for requiring people to change their password.
Design the system around human limitations, don't force humans to do work that a computer does better.
For example, if you want to get statistics on sex, it is pretty much impossible to do so without going through a ton of inappropriate links. This is just the most obvious case of a standard problem of "overshadowing". Often the thing you want is over-shadowed by many other people looking for a similar issue. If you want to get reviews of a website that is optimizing search engines, often you get sent directly to various pages on that website.
Far better than simply outlawing "you can't use your username as your password" Same goes for the silly "can't use the last password as your current one". I never understood the reasoning behind the time based password change. No one expects people to get a new key every six months for their home lock. No one expects someone to get a new ATM card every 6 months. Good passwords are worth keeping for years - as long as they actually are a good password. Are you supposed to be worried that you have given out your old password and forgotten about doing it? You can't stop an idiot from giving away his password. But you don't have to screw it up for the rest of us to help out the idiot.
Wasn't that how Africanized Bee's were created? Wikipedia thinks so.
You left out the Halogens. No mercury issue, no dimness issue, mimic natural light as well as LEDs, and cheaper than CFLs.
We are not allowed to punish people for refusing to incriminate themselves because that ...
We did this for multiple reasons, but they are irrelevant - it is the LAW. Why we did this is not important, what the law says is.
One of the big questions is what if someone says I forgot my password
Before you accuse them of lying, remember how many times you personally have forgotten a password. I have forgotten multiple passwords, including email, work, financial accounts, etc.
Passwords are protected by the 5ifth amendment because the government can not prove someone has NOT forgotten it.
Computers have keyboards not a single switch labelled "0" and "1" for humans to control using binary.
Humans are curious. We need to use UBS devices. It is not that hard to require confirmation before running any program from a flash drive. It is not that hard to sandbox everything and by default (deactivate-able) run a virus check on any new drives - flash, hard, or DVD, CD, or what have your.
Build technology AROUND the human, don't try to change the human to fit the machine.