They stopped with the cookies. Weeks ago.

And really, the only reasonable solution is to (try to) educate people so that they understand how gregarious a web page can be and suggest techniques for controlling them.

(You say 'script blocker', but RequestPolicy can prevent the http connections, and cookie blockers/managers reduce exposure. I expect the long term solution is to revert to only sharing cookies that the user has explicitly whitelisted for a given domain or whatever)

The user desktop might be the guest of the business desktop.

I demand control murders!

~ 160 million workers.

My goal is to encourage people to categorically avoid language that endorses the idea that anyone other than the financial institution is the victim, not to parse out just how much reality is reflected in each of the various other terms.

(I agree that what you are saying is correct, but I think it is a pedantic technicality, the presence of a fraud alert or whatever is not going to stop a smart loan officer from extending a loan)

Can we please try to get them nicknamed the "Street Party"?

It isn't even stolen, it is obtained.

And it isn't some higher order, objective "proof of identity" that is involved, it is knowledge of a government issued magic number and a few other details that are essentially public information.

Gmail is cross compiled java.

My point is that the "collective us" isn't a coherent group, you shouldn't expect coherent behavior.

Your comment only makes sense if you insist that "us" and "we" are coherent descriptions of the people that post here.

"Some of us" and "some of you" make more sense to me.

Uh, uh, uh, wow.

He is proposing a personal tax for when large amounts of money are taken out of a business. If the money is kept in the business, no personal tax increase (the horror and pain!), if a few hundred thousand dollars are taken out annually, no tax increase (but what about my second sport boat?).

I have no trouble with arguments for less taxation, but those arguments should at least attempt to be honest and coherent.

All those other loser states, with their lack of natural resource export economies.

A credit score is not a person's creditworthiness. Which is basically my point.

(I'm not pretending the current system doesn't exist, I understand that a fraudulently opened account can end up being a pain in the ass for the individual that was impersonated. I'm simply trying to call out how stupid that is.)

"Credit Theft" still implies the absurd idea that my creditworthiness is somehow involved when a bank opens an account for a fraudster.

In the spirit of continuing the game, are you really surprised that someone with a fuzzy memory would be nostalgic?