1) The thief him/herself. 2) The company who enables the identity theft by enabling "sight-unseen" optimistic transactions. In other words, companies who have, up to this point, assumed that you are who you say you are when you fill out an online form or whatever other such transaction is being exercised.
If our world is to become more and more disconnected from face-to-face commercial transactions, which offer a sight better chance of verifying that person A using the credit card is not in fact person B or what have you, then I am absolutely for legislation which recognizes that identity theft is not possible without companies de facto complicity in the matter.
However, there is a legal principle that the worst laws are the ones that cannot be enforced without great cost to the society and yet get passed anyway. This is one of those laws.
It's not a bad idea to hold companies at least partially accountable for their participation, perhaps unwilling, in enabling identity thieves, but it needs some retooling and may require infrastructure that does not yet exist. Moreover, there need to be limitations such that the burden on companies is not so severe that it must radically increase the prices of its products simply to be compliant. A law this open-ended invites so much litigation that a company would be justified in expending exorbitant amounts simply to keep from running afoul of it.
Hey, maybe it just as simple that people in these enterprises think Red Hat's a bunch of assholes. Maybe Red Hat is dating their sisters and showing up uninvited to their parties. Maybe Red Hat is prank calling them at all hours.
Shit, I wouldn't share code with people like that.
The census is much more than just a count of people. Quite a bit of statistical and demographic data is collected... questions like how many people per household, demographics of the occupants, and this data is not centralized... and no, they don't walk around the street like some Jar Jar Binks clones asking "Excueeze me, have you be-in censified? Mesa taking census!" Every household gets mailed a census form, and you just fill it out and send it back. If you fill something out on it wrong, they may send a census taker around to get the information corrected.
How to improve advertising's image? Get rid of it wholesale. No I didn't RTFA. I don't waste my time as a rule. I do post here though. Ow. Head hurting. Cognitive dissonance pressure increasing.
"I'll debate you with one hemisphere of my brain tied behind my back."
Well, Rushie, looks like you can finally put that fallow mass of inert grey matter to some use after all. And who knows, maybe that other half of your brain might actually be smarter than the one you claim to use. That is, of course, not saying a whole lot.
$5000 of gear made that big a difference? Hmm. I used to have a phonograph as a wee tot, and who knew that I could get that tinny sounding rig to sound phenomenal if I'd put $5000 worth of additional hardware behind it.
I hear what you're saying and I've heard it a number of times, and I remain skeptical. And yes, I've taken the Pepsi Challenge as you've suggested. Vinyl is not "richer" nor is it any other sort of comparative adjective you use to describe it. In order to get the full experience of any recording, only two things matter: the quality of the recording and the quality of the playback unit. To this day, mastering is done on ANALOG equipment and transferred to DIGITAL format. Why? That question I can't answer, however, here is where the comparison falls to irrelevance.
Can you imagine something getting lost in the translation? A copy of a copy of a copy... and so forth? I would suspect that recording on digital equipment and pressed into digital format (which has the benefit of being lossless, which analog to analog or analog to digital can't boast) would have the "richness" you perceive in vinyl.
Even if you tried desperately to get apples to apples comparisons between digital and analog audio, you will never even approach it unless the recordings are in the native format. Pull any CD out of any collection, and almost in every case you'll see AAD on it. That's analog recording, analog mastering, digital copy. This means you are getting the WORST recording possible. Analog recording to analog mastering? LOSS. Analog mastering to digital copy? LOSS.
It's small wonder that vinyl, being a "native" format of analog audio sounds "richer" than a CD burned from the same recording.
"The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote, 'A flute with no holes is not a flute, and a doughnut with no holes is a danish'... ba-na-na-na-na-na"
Sure, everything is data. What makes it a flute, not a flute, a doughnut, or a danish is not order and interpretation imposed upon that data, but rather who is in control of the conversation when such matters are discussed. The difference between a pterodactyl and a cheese danish is whoever is making up the definition.
Firstly, Real World Tennis comes some-assembly-required. It requires a tennis court, some balls, racquets and another person, not all of which are available all the time, and none of which are included in the base package.
Secondly, Real World Bowling does not come with GETTING FRESH AIR as you've advertised. Real World Bowling comes with GETTING STALE BOWLING ALLEY AIR THAT SMELLS LIKE A COMBINATION OF STALE BEER AND OTHER PEOPLE'S FEET. Additionally, RWB can only be played at certain hours, and only on a pay-per-play basis.
Apple may do what it likes of course, however, without some technical reference or source OUTSIDE of Apple (apparently missing at the link), I'll be skeptical of this "difference".
But really, doesn't that just express the point further? Yes, we've come far. And last year we checked and we'd come far then, too. And probably next year, we'll cast the eye backward once again and say "how far we've come".
Don't we already know this? Is this not what we expect to see? How is it possible to be impressed time and time again by something that's almost instinctively known and entirely predictable?
I guess in the same manner as most people start yawning listening to the curmudgeonly yarn about how your grandfather had to walk barefoot to and from school in 5 feet of snow, uphill both ways, and eat the lint out of his navel because they couldn't afford something more nutritious, I start yawning vehemently while the tech media navel-gazers lacking better reportage are impressed, for the comparison of the state of the art to 40+ year old technology.
I hear that phrase echo in my head every time statements like these are made. What? Could just average jokers bring down our societies should they be permitted to... *GASP*... OMFG!... read and, when inclined, write? Will someone PLEASE think of the children?
I have long been of the opinion that the democratization of writing offered by the Internet exposes something that most "professional writers" don't want exposed, and which anyone who has ever read a movie review or some other such drivel piece has long suspected: if you paid most "professional" writers $1, you'd probably be overpaying them.
Excellent writers who can make money off of their wordsmithing talents have very little to worry about from the democratization of writing. People will pay to read their work because it is such a high caliber of discourse, or has the ability to entertain or provoke. But there are quite a few "professional" writers about whom we've all thought from time to time, "I could write better than this!" These are the ones who have banked their future on being a member of a club whose exclusivity has always been in question, and being at the lower end of what little exclusivity exists, are now finding it difficult to justify why they should be paid for their efforts while other "amateurs" seem to have a better facility for the written word.
The reason is very simple. In my experience, most things that make into popular consumption aren't the best work of an artist. This is true with music just as any other art form. If the album is dead, well, then the artist doesn't get a full showcase of their work. I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for the one hit song they may have had on the radio, only to find a treasure trove of really interesting music that they claim won't fly in Peoria.
Radiation in comets could keep water in liquid form for millions of years, they say, which along with the clay and organic molecules found on-board would provide an ideal incubator."
So does Earth. It's GENIUS, I say. GENIUS!
You said panspermia... uh. huh-huh. heh. uh. huh-huh-huh. hm. huh-huh.
So if I'm a software developer and I want to exploit a little spin, I tell you that the game is 3 years off and I deliver it in 2 and a half, you're happier than if I had promised the software in 2 years and I deliver in a 2 and a half?
Put all the damn V-Chips you want in TVs. Maybe this is the electronic messiah we've all be looking for!
So long as they aren't enabled when I get the set, I have the choice whether I use it or not.
Censorship isn't the restriction of what children may absorb by their parents. That's called "parenting". Censorship is the restriction by adults of what other adults can consume. So if, in your infinite wisdom, you decide that it's easier for you to stop watching crap by enabling your V-chip rather than doing the pedantic, low-tech method of self-censorship known as "changing the channel", by all means use it. However, I might advise that until they come out with a rating system which goes the next step of rating whether or not something is worth watching, rather than the current neolithic method of noting if there are naked boobies or naughty words, I'm afraid you might just end up watching American Idol reruns all the time. Unless I miss my guess, isn't that what you're trying to avoid?
I would like to address the issue of "adding the F-bomb" to a sentence conveying a point better.
Well, I suppose that would depend upon the point I'm trying to convey, wouldn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
To me, there are two sides to identity theft.
1) The thief him/herself.
2) The company who enables the identity theft by enabling "sight-unseen" optimistic transactions. In other words, companies who have, up to this point, assumed that you are who you say you are when you fill out an online form or whatever other such transaction is being exercised.
If our world is to become more and more disconnected from face-to-face commercial transactions, which offer a sight better chance of verifying that person A using the credit card is not in fact person B or what have you, then I am absolutely for legislation which recognizes that identity theft is not possible without companies de facto complicity in the matter.
However, there is a legal principle that the worst laws are the ones that cannot be enforced without great cost to the society and yet get passed anyway. This is one of those laws.
It's not a bad idea to hold companies at least partially accountable for their participation, perhaps unwilling, in enabling identity thieves, but it needs some retooling and may require infrastructure that does not yet exist. Moreover, there need to be limitations such that the burden on companies is not so severe that it must radically increase the prices of its products simply to be compliant. A law this open-ended invites so much litigation that a company would be justified in expending exorbitant amounts simply to keep from running afoul of it.
Hey, maybe it just as simple that people in these enterprises think Red Hat's a bunch of assholes. Maybe Red Hat is dating their sisters and showing up uninvited to their parties. Maybe Red Hat is prank calling them at all hours.
Shit, I wouldn't share code with people like that.
The census is much more than just a count of people. Quite a bit of statistical and demographic data is collected... questions like how many people per household, demographics of the occupants, and this data is not centralized... and no, they don't walk around the street like some Jar Jar Binks clones asking "Excueeze me, have you be-in censified? Mesa taking census!" Every household gets mailed a census form, and you just fill it out and send it back. If you fill something out on it wrong, they may send a census taker around to get the information corrected.
How to improve advertising's image? Get rid of it wholesale. No I didn't RTFA. I don't waste my time as a rule. I do post here though. Ow. Head hurting. Cognitive dissonance pressure increasing.
Doesn't April 1st fit in right in the middle there?
Please let this be an April Fool's joke. Pleaseohpleaseohplease.
"I'll debate you with one hemisphere of my brain tied behind my back."
Well, Rushie, looks like you can finally put that fallow mass of inert grey matter to some use after all. And who knows, maybe that other half of your brain might actually be smarter than the one you claim to use. That is, of course, not saying a whole lot.
That seemed a little strident considering the topic. My apologies for shouting.
$5000 of gear made that big a difference? Hmm. I used to have a phonograph as a wee tot, and who knew that I could get that tinny sounding rig to sound phenomenal if I'd put $5000 worth of additional hardware behind it.
I hear what you're saying and I've heard it a number of times, and I remain skeptical. And yes, I've taken the Pepsi Challenge as you've suggested. Vinyl is not "richer" nor is it any other sort of comparative adjective you use to describe it. In order to get the full experience of any recording, only two things matter: the quality of the recording and the quality of the playback unit. To this day, mastering is done on ANALOG equipment and transferred to DIGITAL format. Why? That question I can't answer, however, here is where the comparison falls to irrelevance.
Can you imagine something getting lost in the translation? A copy of a copy of a copy... and so forth? I would suspect that recording on digital equipment and pressed into digital format (which has the benefit of being lossless, which analog to analog or analog to digital can't boast) would have the "richness" you perceive in vinyl.
Even if you tried desperately to get apples to apples comparisons between digital and analog audio, you will never even approach it unless the recordings are in the native format. Pull any CD out of any collection, and almost in every case you'll see AAD on it. That's analog recording, analog mastering, digital copy. This means you are getting the WORST recording possible. Analog recording to analog mastering? LOSS. Analog mastering to digital copy? LOSS.
It's small wonder that vinyl, being a "native" format of analog audio sounds "richer" than a CD burned from the same recording.
"The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote, 'A flute with no holes is not a flute, and a doughnut with no holes is a danish'... ba-na-na-na-na-na"
Sure, everything is data. What makes it a flute, not a flute, a doughnut, or a danish is not order and interpretation imposed upon that data, but rather who is in control of the conversation when such matters are discussed. The difference between a pterodactyl and a cheese danish is whoever is making up the definition.
Firstly, Real World Tennis comes some-assembly-required. It requires a tennis court, some balls, racquets and another person, not all of which are available all the time, and none of which are included in the base package.
Secondly, Real World Bowling does not come with GETTING FRESH AIR as you've advertised. Real World Bowling comes with GETTING STALE BOWLING ALLEY AIR THAT SMELLS LIKE A COMBINATION OF STALE BEER AND OTHER PEOPLE'S FEET. Additionally, RWB can only be played at certain hours, and only on a pay-per-play basis.
Where can I get some problems like the one Nintendo's got?
Nintendo: "Well, we're making money hand over fist here and we can't keep up with the demand. Woe is us!"
Apple may do what it likes of course, however, without some technical reference or source OUTSIDE of Apple (apparently missing at the link), I'll be skeptical of this "difference".
Bah dum... psssh!
If I ever see my routers doing a 'waggle dance', I'm moving to another universe.
But really, doesn't that just express the point further? Yes, we've come far. And last year we checked and we'd come far then, too. And probably next year, we'll cast the eye backward once again and say "how far we've come".
Don't we already know this? Is this not what we expect to see? How is it possible to be impressed time and time again by something that's almost instinctively known and entirely predictable?
I guess in the same manner as most people start yawning listening to the curmudgeonly yarn about how your grandfather had to walk barefoot to and from school in 5 feet of snow, uphill both ways, and eat the lint out of his navel because they couldn't afford something more nutritious, I start yawning vehemently while the tech media navel-gazers lacking better reportage are impressed, for the comparison of the state of the art to 40+ year old technology.
Call me provincial.
...when people are going to stop being impressed with "how far we've come."
Another of her colleagues managed to come up with a workable Supersymmetry model using a Pet Rock, a Toss Across, and a Slinky.
I hear that phrase echo in my head every time statements like these are made. What? Could just average jokers bring down our societies should they be permitted to... *GASP*... OMFG!... read and, when inclined, write? Will someone PLEASE think of the children?
I have long been of the opinion that the democratization of writing offered by the Internet exposes something that most "professional writers" don't want exposed, and which anyone who has ever read a movie review or some other such drivel piece has long suspected: if you paid most "professional" writers $1, you'd probably be overpaying them.
Excellent writers who can make money off of their wordsmithing talents have very little to worry about from the democratization of writing. People will pay to read their work because it is such a high caliber of discourse, or has the ability to entertain or provoke. But there are quite a few "professional" writers about whom we've all thought from time to time, "I could write better than this!" These are the ones who have banked their future on being a member of a club whose exclusivity has always been in question, and being at the lower end of what little exclusivity exists, are now finding it difficult to justify why they should be paid for their efforts while other "amateurs" seem to have a better facility for the written word.
"Just because people don't agree with you does NOT mean they're stupid"
Not all the time. But most of the time, it actually does.
The reason is very simple. In my experience, most things that make into popular consumption aren't the best work of an artist. This is true with music just as any other art form. If the album is dead, well, then the artist doesn't get a full showcase of their work. I can't tell you how many times I bought an album for the one hit song they may have had on the radio, only to find a treasure trove of really interesting music that they claim won't fly in Peoria.
It does not make sense.
Pulling the string on the See 'N Say...
"The author says..
Radiation in comets could keep water in liquid form for millions of years, they say, which along with the clay and organic molecules found on-board would provide an ideal incubator."
So does Earth. It's GENIUS, I say. GENIUS!
You said panspermia... uh. huh-huh. heh. uh. huh-huh-huh. hm. huh-huh.
I mean the thing that made GTA III, IIIa, and IIIb so great were the framerate, art, and general next-gen-ness.
Since sarcasm doesn't travel well through the IP ether, let me just point it out here.
So if I'm a software developer and I want to exploit a little spin, I tell you that the game is 3 years off and I deliver it in 2 and a half, you're happier than if I had promised the software in 2 years and I deliver in a 2 and a half?
C'mon now. Think it through.
Put all the damn V-Chips you want in TVs. Maybe this is the electronic messiah we've all be looking for!
So long as they aren't enabled when I get the set, I have the choice whether I use it or not.
Censorship isn't the restriction of what children may absorb by their parents. That's called "parenting". Censorship is the restriction by adults of what other adults can consume. So if, in your infinite wisdom, you decide that it's easier for you to stop watching crap by enabling your V-chip rather than doing the pedantic, low-tech method of self-censorship known as "changing the channel", by all means use it. However, I might advise that until they come out with a rating system which goes the next step of rating whether or not something is worth watching, rather than the current neolithic method of noting if there are naked boobies or naughty words, I'm afraid you might just end up watching American Idol reruns all the time. Unless I miss my guess, isn't that what you're trying to avoid?
I would like to address the issue of "adding the F-bomb" to a sentence conveying a point better.
Well, I suppose that would depend upon the point I'm trying to convey, wouldn't it?