I might add that 50 meters STRAIGHT UP does not equate to a 50 meter horizontal shot. If the shot I'm shooting has a maximum effective range of 50 meters (or yards), I can expect that firing straight up into the air, my shot will only reach about 30 meters (or yards). Maybe 40. No matter how you cut it, shotguns are not long range weapons.
Duck hunters don't take those long shots into the sky for that very reason. They use decoys to bring the ducks down to landing approach height - 20 to 100 feet - then shoot them as they pass overhead. Even extra length, extra high powered "goose guns" can't reach much higher than 150 feet.
Olympic clay pigeon shooting occurs at ranges of 50 metres. Targets are thrown into the air 45-55 meters away from the shooter. Olympic trap targets are set at 76 metres.
A shotgun can easily shoot 50 meters and you dont have to do much damage to a drone to make it crash.
Seriously, read what happened. Yeah, BBC has done plenty of bone-headed things in the name of PC. This, however, is not one of those things.
This may not be about PC, in fact I highly doubt it but to say that this isn't politically motivated is bone headed.
Clarkson has been at odds with the BBC's director of TV, Danny Cohen since he became Director of TV. Cohen has been gunning for Clarkson for years but hasn't been able to do anything as Clarkson and Wilman owned a significant part of Top Gear as TG was originally a joint venture between the BBC and Clarksons/Wilmans production company. Months before the "fraccas", BBC acquired Wilmans and Clarksons stake in Top Gear.
However with the loss in revenue the BBC will feel over this and the inevitable failure of the Chris Harris led Top Gear, I suspect that Cohen will be out of a job within a year.
This ended up being about the fact that the same rules need to be applied all through the pay scale.
That's a cop out.
The BBC is not above applying double standards and if this happened at a lower rank, you can bet your arse the person involved would be sent off for "anger management" and that would be the end of it... But as I said, the BBC is not above applying double standards.
if that had happened here in the US, he'd be facing a multi-quintillion-dollar lawsuit already.
Which would be settled for a fraction of a million instead of being the circus that it was in the UK.
The worst mistake we could make is to try to simulate emotions. That's what true psychopaths do -- simulate and fake their emotions.
He's talking about compassion.
Compassion is more about being aware of other people's emotions and changing/compensating with you own actions. The robots that deal with people dont need to understand anger, sadness or joy, but they should know how to react to it.
As an american, Its good to see the brits following in our footsteps. We started shutting off street lights here in places like Stockton California and Detroit Michigan quite some time ago. The impact on reported crime is minimal, as we've also been shutting off funding to most of the police departments. Crash statistics, surprisingly, remain unchanged as well. most cars in these locations dont run, and even if they did there arent any jobs to drive to.
Our next bold experiments are shutting off water in California and shutting off education in Wisconsin.
Might I suggest you next cut off funding to your statistics bureau. After all if no-one makes new statistics, they cant get worse.
I am also firmly in the physical keyboard camp, and I constantly hear that argument that screens are so big now,
I'm also in the physical keyboard camp. Physical KB's have one huge advantage that cannot be negated by big screens. You can type on them without looking at the keys.
Sadly it's very difficult to find a phone that has a physical KB and even though larger screens have helped its not really the same as using a physical KB as I'm constantly having to watch what letters I press rather than the output on the screen. You simply cant touch type on an on screen keyboard.
Getting a physical USB KB for my Nexus 7 was one of the best $12 I've spent in recent years.
Android runs fine IFF you get a Google Nexus phone, AND don't go through Verizon or AT&T and have their malware installed.
Or if you buy any Android-compatible phone, root it and install your own OS on it. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone on Slashdot doesn't do this.
Or you can buy an Android phone outright with the manufacturers image on it.
I know this concept may be foreign to many in the US, but it's quite a common occurrence to those of us in Europe, Australia, Asia... pretty much anywhere that isn't the US.
BTW, you shouldn't need to root the phone to get rid of carrier crapware, all you need is the signed base image from the manufacturer. I understand these aren't hard to find.
I dont hate ads, I hate being annoyed by ads.
The only ads I see are the ones that are passive enough to get past adblock. This I dont really mind as they're almost always not interfering with the content.
When ads become more important than displaying the content people went there for is when people start to turn off, or in the case of the internet they start to use an adblocker. This is in response to advertising becoming more and more painful for the end user.
What is the alternate solution?
Few are suggesting that advertisement needs to be eliminated. This is entirely the product of your black and white thinking, that we must accept bad advertising or the entire system will fall apart. It wont.
What we are saying is that the advertising business model needs to change to be more accommodating to the end user, not hostile to it. As long as advertisers think that becoming more and more annoying is a good way to get eyeballs, more and more people will continue to use adblockers. Eventually they'll be forced to change, even if it results in most advertisers dying out and being replaced by companies with an adapted business model.
Think about it, then reply.
The idea is that if you vaccinate people but they still get the disease and don't get it as badly, they might not die as quickly, or might not die.
However this is not how vaccines work. I suspect the fine article got a lot wrong.
The idea is that if you vaccinate people they have an increased immunity to the pathogen and have a greater chance of not becoming infected if exposed. This slows or stops the spread of the pathogen amongst a community.
What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).
Our assumptions about evolution is that its driven by the need to survive. When a pathogen is faced with a change in their environment bought on by a pharmaceutical treatment it is possible for a pathogen to adapt to fight or avoid that treatment. This does not mean they'll automatically adapt (they're not the Borg), in fact in most cases the opposite can occur where the pathogen is completely (or nearly completely) wiped out such as the case of smallpox.
Evolution does not consider risks and benefits, changes are random. Sometimes these changes can cause a species to die out by destroying its environment. As for pathogens, killing the host is often required for a pathogen to spread, especially for pathogens that only spread through direct contact (not air, food or water borne), not killing the host by producing symptoms that allows the pathogen to spread is going to result in the pathogen dying out.
In nature, when there is a rapid change in the environment, most species end up dying. This is the bad part of anti-biotics as its a similar event on a mirco scale. They're indiscriminate, so they'll kill the micro-organisms in our body that aren't just benign but helpful. For this reason alone we should try not to not over subscribe anti-biotics, however anti-biotic resistant pathogens are also a consideration.
Since my password manager is a simple piece of software - an encrypted database of my passwords that runs on my computer with the data on my computer, I'd say yes, I have no reason not to trust it. I wouldn't put my bank login details in to it though, because of vulnerabilities + trojans + keystroke-loggers.
Trust an online password manager - hell no.
I have a very strange method of storing my passwords. I keep them in the mk I human brain.
The real security risk is with the online service being compromised and databases or details being downloaded... As what happened to LastPass a few months ago.
That's why I always just open links in new tabs, and if I get an interstitial, I just close the tab.
That doesn't always work unfortunately. Some pages are set up to redirect everyone to prevent this. When that happens I move my thumb 2 cm to the right to hit Androids menu button so I can swipe the offending page into oblivion.
Then I make a mental note never to go back there again.
Sheesh. EVERY car needs cup holders! Where else are you supposed to put your beer?
Jokes aside, THIS.
Cup holders are essential. I can live without Twitbook integration, voice activation, in-car DVD and all that other bollocks but cup holders are a basic need in an automobile.
If you're going for a long drive, you'll need a bottle of water and this sits in a cup holder. Same with transporting a drink from where you buy it to where you drink it. Especially if its in a cup instead of a bottle.
I'm one of those people who instantly turn off whenever I get an Interstitial. If I dont get taken directly to the page I wanted I'll mash the back button.
The main reason is that if I'm going to a site, I want a specific page and when you dismiss an interstitial 9 times out of 10 instead of taking me to the content I want to view, it drops me on the sites main/landing page.
Its the same with popup/popover ads. On mobile these are a pain in the arse to close and they interfere with the content I'm trying to view, so again I'll just mash the back button until its gone.
You want to trust your financial log-ins to Facebook, Google or Microsoft? Hope you keep most of your money stuffed in your mattress, it would certainly be safer there.
Whilst I dont expect that Facebook, Google or Microsoft will deliberately steal money, they certainly wont make it as hard as the banks currently have to.
Beyond this, the possibilities for datamining and targeted advertising is just scary. Roseanne Barr and Margaret Thatcher erotic fan fic scary.
That being said, I'd still not keep money stuffed in a mattress, I'd buy some precious metals and keep them buried in the back yard as metals have the chance to appreciate.
No, of course not. In fact my bank requires me to remember 4 PINs, 3 passwords and one user ID. How idiotic is that?
For your bank.
That holds your money (or at least your debt).
That you will hold responsible for anything that goes wrong.
Not stupid in the slightest.
Having a different PIN/Password for your card, telephone banking and internet banking as well as a second factor of authentication for internet banking transfers compartmentalises different attack vectors so that someone who overhears your telephone pin cant use that to access your netbank.
These measures are in place because if a scammer empties your bank account or tries to buy a flight in Belarus with your credit card, you'll be demanding the bank return YOUR money. As it is the banks responsibility to secure the funds and credit they hold, it is also the banks prerogative (and duty in many cases) to force you to follow effective security protocols even if you dont like it.
You've gone and provided an excellent example of what the summary was talking about. As a non-expert you are not aware (and are likely to go into denial) of the security risks associated with banking. As an expert I'm aware of why those measures are in place.
In other words, one now needs two doctors treating each patient, one that knows enough to "grade" the patient, and another one to do the actual treatment.
So two doctors being paid for the same job... The medical-industrial complex approves.
OK, would it help if we changed that to 99% of marketing is deceptive by nature.
For every marketing campaign that is honest, there are 99 that aren't. I cant even think of a marketing campaign that is global and honest. Every one tries to convey an impression that isn't true. Axe/Lynx deodorants wont make you irresistible to the opposite sex, drinking coke doesn't mean you're doing wacky things with attractive friends, every airline advertises flying as a pleasant experience in half empty cabins, not being crammed into a cigar tube with 300 others a recliner in your face, a kid kicking the back of your seat and some idiot cropdusting rows 34-47 every 20 mintues. Honesty in advertisement is a big problem because the honest truth is that products are not that good.
Would you buy a Mercedes if the ad said "Not much better than a Nissan, but twice the price" or coke if it said "We'll give you Type 2 Diabetes, but you're hooked on sugar anyway"? Of course not, honesty is an pariah for advertisers.
What it will always boil down to is the fact the user thought they could get away with it.
The most common excuse is the blanket "but it stops me from doing my work" and my response is "how". This is where 99% of the "it stops me from working" excuses fail. Most of the time it prevents them from doing things they way they're used to or would like to and its easier to complain than learn something new.
What a lot of people dont get is that many policies are in place to prevent them from doing something stupid and as a sysadmin I've had to attend many meetings where a user has done things their own way and lost data.
But I've seen strict policies that cost companies money and clients for the sake of being perfect.
I worked for a liquidator for about 6 months. I've seen many companies lose everything because they had no or extremely lax policies.
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars.
Many taxi companies have owner drivers who drive their own cars. In fact most chauffeur/town car systems are like this. London's minicab system is entirely owner-driver. Are they not taxi companies?
A taxi company is a company I employ to provide a private car to transport me from point A to B. The details of how it does this is inconsequential.
A tech company is a company I employ to provide me with a tech (meaning computer) solution.
This court ruling is a foregone conclusion, but bureaucracy must be served.
As much as I want to lay the blame for this on it being a Chrysler, now Fiat, product it seems that all auto makers are making a mad rush to have these hyper connected cars. My current car has features I couldn't care less about but is still mostly mechanical linkages and not drive by wire
Drive by wire is not inherently bad. A lot of very good cars have DBW now.
The problem is that drive control systems are being connected to entertainment and communications systems that have links to the outside world.
There should be an air gap or at the very least a one way connection (as in the Tx pairs physically cut) between systems that have access to drive/engine controls and systems that have connections to the outside world. Sadly this wont happen until someone actually dies because of it (and even then they'll use every dirty trick in the book to avoid it) because there are too many vested interests (law enforcement, data miners, "services" like onstar) and auto makers are too lazy to do things properly.
Paying extra to keep an old mk IV Supra on the road seems like it's becoming a more attractive prospect every day.
If the hackers get your data, all they have dirt on is a fictional character. This is 21st century, I thought every guy who knows how to use a bank account and a computer would know this shit?
For bonus points, get the credit card in your wife's name.
If she gets suspicious or finds out, start adding small amounts of LSD to her food.
Why would anyone using a cheaters' hookup site use their real name?
-jcr
First reason: people aren't that bright, especially people who cheat.
Second reason: people are lazy.
Third reason: its a pay site. You need a CC with a real name and address. There are easy ways around this but see reasons #1 and #2 as to why it's uncommon.
Slashdot Mirror
I might add that 50 meters STRAIGHT UP does not equate to a 50 meter horizontal shot. If the shot I'm shooting has a maximum effective range of 50 meters (or yards), I can expect that firing straight up into the air, my shot will only reach about 30 meters (or yards). Maybe 40. No matter how you cut it, shotguns are not long range weapons.
Duck hunters don't take those long shots into the sky for that very reason. They use decoys to bring the ducks down to landing approach height - 20 to 100 feet - then shoot them as they pass overhead. Even extra length, extra high powered "goose guns" can't reach much higher than 150 feet.
Olympic clay pigeon shooting occurs at ranges of 50 metres. Targets are thrown into the air 45-55 meters away from the shooter. Olympic trap targets are set at 76 metres.
A shotgun can easily shoot 50 meters and you dont have to do much damage to a drone to make it crash.
This may not be about PC, in fact I highly doubt it but to say that this isn't politically motivated is bone headed.
Clarkson has been at odds with the BBC's director of TV, Danny Cohen since he became Director of TV. Cohen has been gunning for Clarkson for years but hasn't been able to do anything as Clarkson and Wilman owned a significant part of Top Gear as TG was originally a joint venture between the BBC and Clarksons/Wilmans production company. Months before the "fraccas", BBC acquired Wilmans and Clarksons stake in Top Gear.
However with the loss in revenue the BBC will feel over this and the inevitable failure of the Chris Harris led Top Gear, I suspect that Cohen will be out of a job within a year.
That's a cop out.
The BBC is not above applying double standards and if this happened at a lower rank, you can bet your arse the person involved would be sent off for "anger management" and that would be the end of it... But as I said, the BBC is not above applying double standards.
Which would be settled for a fraction of a million instead of being the circus that it was in the UK.
The worst mistake we could make is to try to simulate emotions. That's what true psychopaths do -- simulate and fake their emotions.
He's talking about compassion.
Compassion is more about being aware of other people's emotions and changing/compensating with you own actions. The robots that deal with people dont need to understand anger, sadness or joy, but they should know how to react to it.
As an american, Its good to see the brits following in our footsteps. We started shutting off street lights here in places like Stockton California and Detroit Michigan quite some time ago. The impact on reported crime is minimal, as we've also been shutting off funding to most of the police departments. Crash statistics, surprisingly, remain unchanged as well. most cars in these locations dont run, and even if they did there arent any jobs to drive to.
Our next bold experiments are shutting off water in California and shutting off education in Wisconsin.
Might I suggest you next cut off funding to your statistics bureau. After all if no-one makes new statistics, they cant get worse.
I'm also in the physical keyboard camp. Physical KB's have one huge advantage that cannot be negated by big screens. You can type on them without looking at the keys.
Sadly it's very difficult to find a phone that has a physical KB and even though larger screens have helped its not really the same as using a physical KB as I'm constantly having to watch what letters I press rather than the output on the screen. You simply cant touch type on an on screen keyboard.
Getting a physical USB KB for my Nexus 7 was one of the best $12 I've spent in recent years.
Or if you buy any Android-compatible phone, root it and install your own OS on it. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone on Slashdot doesn't do this.
Or you can buy an Android phone outright with the manufacturers image on it.
I know this concept may be foreign to many in the US, but it's quite a common occurrence to those of us in Europe, Australia, Asia... pretty much anywhere that isn't the US.
BTW, you shouldn't need to root the phone to get rid of carrier crapware, all you need is the signed base image from the manufacturer. I understand these aren't hard to find.
I dont hate ads, I hate being annoyed by ads. The only ads I see are the ones that are passive enough to get past adblock. This I dont really mind as they're almost always not interfering with the content.
When ads become more important than displaying the content people went there for is when people start to turn off, or in the case of the internet they start to use an adblocker. This is in response to advertising becoming more and more painful for the end user.
What is the alternate solution?
Few are suggesting that advertisement needs to be eliminated. This is entirely the product of your black and white thinking, that we must accept bad advertising or the entire system will fall apart. It wont.
What we are saying is that the advertising business model needs to change to be more accommodating to the end user, not hostile to it. As long as advertisers think that becoming more and more annoying is a good way to get eyeballs, more and more people will continue to use adblockers. Eventually they'll be forced to change, even if it results in most advertisers dying out and being replaced by companies with an adapted business model. Think about it, then reply.
The idea is that if you vaccinate people but they still get the disease and don't get it as badly, they might not die as quickly, or might not die.
However this is not how vaccines work. I suspect the fine article got a lot wrong.
The idea is that if you vaccinate people they have an increased immunity to the pathogen and have a greater chance of not becoming infected if exposed. This slows or stops the spread of the pathogen amongst a community.
Our assumptions about evolution is that its driven by the need to survive. When a pathogen is faced with a change in their environment bought on by a pharmaceutical treatment it is possible for a pathogen to adapt to fight or avoid that treatment. This does not mean they'll automatically adapt (they're not the Borg), in fact in most cases the opposite can occur where the pathogen is completely (or nearly completely) wiped out such as the case of smallpox.
Evolution does not consider risks and benefits, changes are random. Sometimes these changes can cause a species to die out by destroying its environment. As for pathogens, killing the host is often required for a pathogen to spread, especially for pathogens that only spread through direct contact (not air, food or water borne), not killing the host by producing symptoms that allows the pathogen to spread is going to result in the pathogen dying out.
In nature, when there is a rapid change in the environment, most species end up dying. This is the bad part of anti-biotics as its a similar event on a mirco scale. They're indiscriminate, so they'll kill the micro-organisms in our body that aren't just benign but helpful. For this reason alone we should try not to not over subscribe anti-biotics, however anti-biotic resistant pathogens are also a consideration.
Since my password manager is a simple piece of software - an encrypted database of my passwords that runs on my computer with the data on my computer, I'd say yes, I have no reason not to trust it. I wouldn't put my bank login details in to it though, because of vulnerabilities + trojans + keystroke-loggers.
Trust an online password manager - hell no.
I have a very strange method of storing my passwords. I keep them in the mk I human brain.
The real security risk is with the online service being compromised and databases or details being downloaded... As what happened to LastPass a few months ago.
If you bothered to read my post, it would have been obvious that I inferred the owners of the effected vehicles.
That's why I always just open links in new tabs, and if I get an interstitial, I just close the tab.
That doesn't always work unfortunately. Some pages are set up to redirect everyone to prevent this. When that happens I move my thumb 2 cm to the right to hit Androids menu button so I can swipe the offending page into oblivion.
Then I make a mental note never to go back there again.
The thing that's going to hurt them is the fact that they'll be forced to buy back hundreds of thousands of Jeeps if the owner chooses.
I suspect quite a few of them will chose to do just that, everyone I know who's owned a Jeep will rabidly warn you off them.
Sheesh. EVERY car needs cup holders! Where else are you supposed to put your beer?
Jokes aside, THIS.
Cup holders are essential. I can live without Twitbook integration, voice activation, in-car DVD and all that other bollocks but cup holders are a basic need in an automobile.
If you're going for a long drive, you'll need a bottle of water and this sits in a cup holder. Same with transporting a drink from where you buy it to where you drink it. Especially if its in a cup instead of a bottle.
I'm one of those people who instantly turn off whenever I get an Interstitial. If I dont get taken directly to the page I wanted I'll mash the back button.
The main reason is that if I'm going to a site, I want a specific page and when you dismiss an interstitial 9 times out of 10 instead of taking me to the content I want to view, it drops me on the sites main/landing page.
Its the same with popup/popover ads. On mobile these are a pain in the arse to close and they interfere with the content I'm trying to view, so again I'll just mash the back button until its gone.
You want to trust your financial log-ins to Facebook, Google or Microsoft? Hope you keep most of your money stuffed in your mattress, it would certainly be safer there.
Whilst I dont expect that Facebook, Google or Microsoft will deliberately steal money, they certainly wont make it as hard as the banks currently have to.
Beyond this, the possibilities for datamining and targeted advertising is just scary. Roseanne Barr and Margaret Thatcher erotic fan fic scary.
That being said, I'd still not keep money stuffed in a mattress, I'd buy some precious metals and keep them buried in the back yard as metals have the chance to appreciate.
For your bank.
That holds your money (or at least your debt). That you will hold responsible for anything that goes wrong.
Not stupid in the slightest.
Having a different PIN/Password for your card, telephone banking and internet banking as well as a second factor of authentication for internet banking transfers compartmentalises different attack vectors so that someone who overhears your telephone pin cant use that to access your netbank.
These measures are in place because if a scammer empties your bank account or tries to buy a flight in Belarus with your credit card, you'll be demanding the bank return YOUR money. As it is the banks responsibility to secure the funds and credit they hold, it is also the banks prerogative (and duty in many cases) to force you to follow effective security protocols even if you dont like it.
You've gone and provided an excellent example of what the summary was talking about. As a non-expert you are not aware (and are likely to go into denial) of the security risks associated with banking. As an expert I'm aware of why those measures are in place.
In other words, one now needs two doctors treating each patient, one that knows enough to "grade" the patient, and another one to do the actual treatment.
So two doctors being paid for the same job... The medical-industrial complex approves.
Marketing by nature is deceptive
Not true.
OK, would it help if we changed that to 99% of marketing is deceptive by nature.
For every marketing campaign that is honest, there are 99 that aren't. I cant even think of a marketing campaign that is global and honest. Every one tries to convey an impression that isn't true. Axe/Lynx deodorants wont make you irresistible to the opposite sex, drinking coke doesn't mean you're doing wacky things with attractive friends, every airline advertises flying as a pleasant experience in half empty cabins, not being crammed into a cigar tube with 300 others a recliner in your face, a kid kicking the back of your seat and some idiot cropdusting rows 34-47 every 20 mintues. Honesty in advertisement is a big problem because the honest truth is that products are not that good.
Would you buy a Mercedes if the ad said "Not much better than a Nissan, but twice the price" or coke if it said "We'll give you Type 2 Diabetes, but you're hooked on sugar anyway"? Of course not, honesty is an pariah for advertisers.
You will get excuses.
What it will always boil down to is the fact the user thought they could get away with it.
The most common excuse is the blanket "but it stops me from doing my work" and my response is "how". This is where 99% of the "it stops me from working" excuses fail. Most of the time it prevents them from doing things they way they're used to or would like to and its easier to complain than learn something new.
What a lot of people dont get is that many policies are in place to prevent them from doing something stupid and as a sysadmin I've had to attend many meetings where a user has done things their own way and lost data.
I worked for a liquidator for about 6 months. I've seen many companies lose everything because they had no or extremely lax policies.
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars.
Many taxi companies have owner drivers who drive their own cars. In fact most chauffeur/town car systems are like this. London's minicab system is entirely owner-driver. Are they not taxi companies?
A taxi company is a company I employ to provide a private car to transport me from point A to B. The details of how it does this is inconsequential.
A tech company is a company I employ to provide me with a tech (meaning computer) solution.
This court ruling is a foregone conclusion, but bureaucracy must be served.
As much as I want to lay the blame for this on it being a Chrysler, now Fiat, product it seems that all auto makers are making a mad rush to have these hyper connected cars. My current car has features I couldn't care less about but is still mostly mechanical linkages and not drive by wire
Drive by wire is not inherently bad. A lot of very good cars have DBW now.
The problem is that drive control systems are being connected to entertainment and communications systems that have links to the outside world.
There should be an air gap or at the very least a one way connection (as in the Tx pairs physically cut) between systems that have access to drive/engine controls and systems that have connections to the outside world. Sadly this wont happen until someone actually dies because of it (and even then they'll use every dirty trick in the book to avoid it) because there are too many vested interests (law enforcement, data miners, "services" like onstar) and auto makers are too lazy to do things properly.
Paying extra to keep an old mk IV Supra on the road seems like it's becoming a more attractive prospect every day.
If the hackers get your data, all they have dirt on is a fictional character. This is 21st century, I thought every guy who knows how to use a bank account and a computer would know this shit?
For bonus points, get the credit card in your wife's name.
If she gets suspicious or finds out, start adding small amounts of LSD to her food.
As a married man, the last thing I'd want in my life would be another woman. I can barely handle the one I have!
I've never understood the obsession with threesomes, do you really want to disappoint two women at once?
Why would anyone using a cheaters' hookup site use their real name?
-jcr
First reason: people aren't that bright, especially people who cheat.
Second reason: people are lazy.
Third reason: its a pay site. You need a CC with a real name and address. There are easy ways around this but see reasons #1 and #2 as to why it's uncommon.