Saturday, February 23, 2008

Experian, one of the top credit reporting companies, isn't very happy with another company called LifeLock because
LifeLock's scheme costs Experian millions of dollars every year in processing large numbers of improper initial fraud alerts, mailing mandatory notices to consumers, and providing free credit reports to consumers who are not eligible for such reports
There are also, apparently, other reasons why Experian is not happy with what LifeLock is doing, too.

Under other circumstances i might actually have some sympathy for Experian, but given my experience with them hounding me for months to provide information about a company that doesn't exist simply because one of my domains has ".com" at the end of its name, i can't say that i'm sorry that Experian is being compelled to provide free credit reports to people whose records may well be inaccurate for reasons for which Experian only has itself to blame.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

This blog is not suitable for young children

Tell me something i didn't already know. On the other hand, it's mildly amusing that one of the factors that resulted in the R rating was the use of the word "crap".

Oh, my.

Back in the days of my formative years, "crap" was considered a reasonable substitute for the nasty, never to be said aloud word "shit". I remember the first time i said the word "shit" in school; my third grade teacher's reaction was such that you'd think i had just pulled a stiletto out of my sleeve and stabbed a classmate; her eyes got really big, the color of her face changed, and she screamed at me. Mind you, i had been hearing the word tossed around at home by my father for as long as i could remember. He used other words that were considered unsuitable for public speech, too, but considering how often he used the word "shit" compared to the others it seemed a relatively innocuous word at the time. So if even the word "crap" is considered unsuitable i have to wonder how the folks at would rate a site that offered tutorials on statistics and used a certain gambling game to illustrate concepts of probability.

What's really a hoot, though, is that my website is as a whole rated "G" by these same people. The poetry page mentions fun things like guns, ropes, and arsenic, the prose page alludes to death only slightly less often than a page of obituaries, and the nonfiction section by itself easily gets an NC-17 rating from all the times the word "suicide" is used. To give a more apt rating of a website there should probably be an option to indicate that it *is* a website being evaluated so the script that does the rating digs a little deeper than the URL of the page it's initially led to.

Of course, it's really all for fun and isn't meant to be taken seriously. The site that hosts the blog/site rater also carries fun items like How Many Five Year Olds Could You Take in a Fight? and What Are Your Chances of Surviving a Zombie Apocalypse?