Slashdot Mirror
Nearly 40% of Americans Would Give Up Sex For Better Online Security, Survey Finds (huffingtonpost.com)
A recent survey of over 2,000 adults conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Dashlane, a "leader in online identity and password management," found that nearly 40 percent of Americans would give up sex for an entire year if it meant they'd never have to worry about being hacked. Huffington Post reports: 40 percent of people also said they'd give up their favorite food for one month in the name of peace of mind online. If all of this sounds drastic, the truth is that it probably is. The single biggest thing people can do to help keep their online identity safe is probably the easiest -- a solid password. 10 years ago, anti-virus was the primary method of online security. But since the Internet has left the desktop and is on laptops, tablets, and cell phones, and since so many people now use the cloud for backing up their sensitive data, following proper password protocol is critical. Of course, having a solid password doesn't do a lot of good if you're giving it out to people. And nearly 50% of people have shared a password to an e-mail account or to an account like Netflix with a friend or had a friend share theirs (which is a surprisingly high number when you consider that 4 out of 10 people said that sharing an online social media password was more intimate than sex). A look at the password habits of Americans showed that about 30% have used a pet's name, almost 25% have used a family member's name, 21% a birthday, and 10% each have used an anniversary, a sports team, an address, or a phone number. So if you just know a few basic, personal details about someone, you've got a decent chance at cracking their password. The study also revealed some interesting data in that younger Americans (those age 18 to 34) who grew up online are far more trusting with passwords than older generations, and married people are less likely to part with passwords than single people.
It's not that women have no drive but it is quite a bit weaker than men's.
Nah that's just a rather recent social idea. Go back a while and you find that people considered the opposite to be true.
Also, since the women control the sex,
No they don't, that's an incredibly stupid thing to think.
every woman gets 100% satisfied sexually
Fucking moron. I mean really. You actually believe that? Have you, like, ever actually talked to a woman ever? I was going to try to come up with a "logical" argument, but how can you argue with someone who just invents facts to support their world view. On an entirely unrelated note, did you vote Trump?
and every male is frustrated
I ain't.
since there is always much more demand than supply
Haaa hahahaha.
There might be a shortage of women who you think are hot enough that you want to bonk. However saying "there's a shortage of women" is somewhat different from, for example, "there's a shortage of supermodels who want to bonk me".
The "fact" that women have as strong drive as men is simply political correctness...sadly it has penetrated even biology text books.
At times past other cultures have considered the opposite to be the case.
The refusal to recognize that 9 out of 10 men are sexually frustrated [if monogamy is obeyed] is at the core of enormous amount of social trouble....
How do you know the women aren't sexually frustrated too? Oh right you don't. You just invented a fantasy where they aren't. Try actually speaking to women, or failing that, visit some internet forums where people are more likely to talk about their personal lives, such as the comments section of agony columns.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I recently observed how 'systemctl whatever disable' (or whatever the correct syntax is, I don't remember) would exit successfully, even if "whatever" is not even a valid service name. No warning either. In a script that would have shat itself, but oh well, scripts are evil, right? Too transparent and readily debugable.
Now, go ahead and explain to me why exiting successfully when trying to disable a nonexistant services is A-OK because if the service does not exist, it is kinda-sorta disabled anyway and thus totally not a problem.
To me it is the poor design shining through, and with this precedent how am I supposed to trust in that this was a coincidence and the rest of systemd does not have those basic glitches that can lead to extremely obscure errors down the line. Especially since I ran into this within the first 10 minutes of familiarizing myself with that shiny new blackbox. Fuck this crap. I went back to sysvinit on Debian, and I don't even like sysvinit, but systemd is orders of magnitude worse (at the same time also being orders of magnitude bigger. the amount of code that is PID1 alone is mind-boggling. If you don't believe it, Look at the goddamn source and, wait, no, don't just count the lines -- if you are marginally familiar with C, you will notice there is over a page worth of local includes. Are you marginally familiar with C and do you want to explain what this means wrt. to how much code is running as PID1?).
That said, other fancy new-school linux toys have similar issues. Especially the 'ip' tool or iproute2. If you script it, it better "work fine, thank you", and if not you're SOL.
Disclaimer: I'm currently being "forced" to run Linux at work, so I have to put up with this shit. I'll eventually be back on NetBSD and start enjoying watching the circus that is Linux again.
PS: You running systemd on what I assume are production servers gives evidence of carelessness. No matter how good or crappy systemd is, it is not mature. You don't run immature stuff on production servers, whenever possible. sysadmin 101.
Thus I'm going to assume 17 years means more like 5 years and you're a PFY. Thank god I don't have to work with you.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!