So? From the viewpoint of someone standing still, he can still not move faster then the speed of light. And any time he drops off a toy, he has to either slow down slowly, or subject the toy itself to extreme g forces. Since toys arrive in a non-squished condition (and they are generally not resistant to high g, as the kids soon discover), then Santa has to slow them down slowly - taking quite a bit of time for every toy dropped off.
Each toy is delivered with the elf who made it. The elf slows the toy down on descent, places it neatly, and promptly burns itself to death in the fire place. If you don't have a fireplace the elf will flush itself, use the garbage disposal, provoke the dog into eating it, or, failing all of those, walk outside and freeze to death. Most people confuse their bodies for garden gnomes.
Who made *you* the owner of the definition of "nutritious"? Where is the Official Definition of nutritious along the lines that you suggest? What makes that definition right? It's not a scientific term. It means what we collectively agree it means, same as other day-to-day words.
If I gave you a tomato loaded with every vitamin you can think of, plus enough cyanide to kill you, would you really argue that it was nutritious? If I told you it was nutritious in front of witnesses, and you said "I like nutritious foods" and ate it, and dropped down dead, do you really think a jury would find me innocent on the grounds that it had lots of valuable nutrients in it?
Your supposition regarding antibiotic-resistant bacteria is not backed by any study I've ever heard of. Eating antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a really shitty way of building up your immune system.
Words have definitions. Something is nutritious because it provides nutrients.
The author of this article is a damned foodie and GMO scaremonger, AND he's factually wrong.
I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?
You have to sort of pay attention to what was really happening all along....
Previously, you could only get a fair use sample of a book, a few pages at best, in response to a search. You couldn't get the whole book. You got less than what a public library would allow you to photocopy in house.
At no time was google providing entire books still in copyright from known publishers and authors.
Now you get up to 20% on line. (The publishers finally figured out that if you read 20%, you are more likely to buy the book to get the rest).
It doesn't matter is google was making them available online in whole, in part, or not at all. They violated copyright when they copied them in the first place. And they copied books they didn't even own! They waltzed into public librarians, took over a room, some tables, and a library employee for a couple of weeks, and photographed every book they could find. "It's ok, we're allowed to do this because we're Google!"
It sure as fuck is an argument. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN. We, The People have every right to tell IP holders to shove it up their ass, if we so desire. And I assure you that people will continue to make great art long after copyright bites the dust. To think otherwise completely ignores human nature.
"Social bargain" and "social contract" are phrases used by people who have no logical or legal basis for an argument, and want things their way just because.
I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?
Absolutely nothing. If any individual had done the same thing, or even just scanned books to index them for personal use, they'd be a rotting corpse by now.
How is this "spiraling complexity" in any way? There are standards.
Standards like HTML and CSS. No spiraling complexity there, no siree.
You're crazy. It's 2012. Everyone knows now that the best way to deal with lots of data is to encode it all into XM, then hack together some XSLT, and then pepper the output with JQuery. This way you get an inefficient data storage system, terrible performance, unwieldy code, and a rounded button with a gradient background. The gradient works in FF 17+, IE 9/10, IE 8 with an added hack, Safari maybe (we didn't actually test), and usually Chrome (it breaks every few releases and fixes itself in the following one).
When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.
Seems like 5 to me.
A causes B B causes A and B is cyclical (or we're time traveling) B and A are both caused by C B is caused by C and A is caused by D, C and D are unrelated B and A self-contained events with no direct external cause and no relationship to each other
Oh please, they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fracking, or some part of its process, causes earthquakes, there won't be the slightest change in procedure. After all, that oil's not going to sell itself sitting in the ground there.
Does money ride on an action being taken? If yes, it's absolutely irrelevant what the effects are of it being done, it's going to be done.
I like fracking because liberals aren't quite sure what line to tow.
According to liberals:
Fracking is evil when it's for oil. Fracking is good when it's for natural gas.
HOLD IT! Now that oil companies are heavily investing in natural gas, the environmental effects due to getting it and processing it must be scrutinized!
Natural gas bad! Better than coal, but bad! Make a documentary blaming fracking for cancer, earthquakes, etc. Fracking is bad!
WAIT GUYS I'VE GOT THE LATEST LIBERAL MEMO RIGHT HERE LET'S ALL GATHER 'ROUND AND GET EDUCATED! That documentary had some problems (it was bullshit) so now natural gas is good again, and so is fracking. However, we've got to get some GREEN companies and government regulation behind it! We can't have those oil companies using their expertise and existing infrastructure for collection, refinement, and distribution to make a profit.
That would be absolutely useless for any sort of security unless you could physically inspect the device and record the outputs of a batch of inputs. If you can't replicate what the GPU does, then you can't verify that a given output was done by a given GPU.
And of course it can be replicated in software. It's not magical, it's a physical thing.
Not entirely true. Good security is based on 3 things:
- something only you have (your graphics card, a physical key)
- something only you know (a password)
- something only you are (biometrics, typing patterns)
As it stands today you usually have one of those things, the password. Adding in something difficult to spoof as the summary suggests is an improvement. So now you have to have a password and a graphics card with certain flaws.
I agree with your sentiments though. This is an interesting idea but seems awkward to implement.
From the perspective of the one doing the verification, that's something you know, something you know, and something you know. Nobody comes out and physically inspects your graphics card or looks at your thumb print or asks you to present a key fob. They all ask for the numbers programs of devices output. Keyfobs generate a specific code at a given time. Biometric scanners generate a hash given a specific input or any similar input. This GPU scanning program will do the same. These things are hard for an attacker to know, but they're not much better than a password. Someone can know your GPU fingerprint, your retina scan, or your keyfob's info in the verifier's database in much the same way they can know your password. Your shit gets hacked, the verifier's shit gets hacked, someone attacks you locally, someone is MITMing your ass, etc.
Good security is based on 1 thing: A human physically inspecting another human for each and every access request.
We don't have good security policies on the internet. We have very good security policies wherever rich and powerful people give a shit - bank vaults, nuclear missile silos, celebrity weddings. Good security is not possible on the internet because people refuse to pay or wait. For most users, it goes like this (most important to least important): Cost, convenience, ability to spy on the ex or that bitch whore Tammy, peace of mind, weather bug and desktop buddies, security.
If you want a helmet, wear a fucking helmet. If I don't want a helmet, don't fucking force me to wear one.
If you want a seatbelt, wear a fucking seatbelt. If I don't want a seatbelt, don't fucking force me to wear one.
Cyclists should be forced to wear helmets. They should be forced to register their bikes and pass a test in order to use the public roads. And they should be ticketed every time they run a stop sign or traffic light without stopping, or do something else that is unsafe. Any cyclist who disagrees is an entitled prick. These are the rules that motorists have to follow. If cyclists want to share the road they should follow the rules.
For instance, we can prepare a law according to which, if the result of a vote are cheated by more than 10% according to fraud parameter fi from the paper, then this vote is canceled.
And this even could have precise granularity, like the vote is canceled only in the regions where this cheating is detected.
And we also can add, we ban the citizens that handled the vote bureau, not from voting again, but from being bureau delegates for 10 years.
Of course it is useful. Speaking of which, I'm now waiting for an application worksheet to test my own election here, for which I have all the regional data in a newspaper I kept.
Party A is leading in the polls by 3%. Party B is trailing by 3%. Each party can stuff the ballot to a certain extent. If Party B wants to win the district they can outspend Party A enough to get their tactical fraud to cover the spread. If they don't think they can beat the spread, they can just egregiously stuff for Party A instead of their own Party. When the analysis comes back it looks like Party A cheated a whole hell of a lot, and the vote is canceled. If you thought incumbents were bad now, wait til you try out your plan.
So what? A technique doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be useful. Which is fortunate, because few techniques are.
It absolutely does have to be 100% accurate when you're ultimately going to use that technique as evidence in a court of law. That's the only end game here if you believe the intentions set forth in TFA. You can't just be 99% or 99.99% sure when you need to beat reasonable doubt on a subject that covers the behavior of large groups of people. Unless you also happen to have video of someone stuffing the damned ballot box, you need to be 100% sure. If you do have such a video, then you don't need the math.
Of course, the true intention of this is to inject FUD into the system and scream "OH MY GOD LOOK AT MY MATH THESE GUYS ARE RIGGING THE ELECTION!" while the other guys scream "NO WE'RE NOT LOOK AT MY MATH! THEY'RE THE ONES DOING IT!!!111".
Without tracking who voted for whom, it is impossible to detect any kind of voter fraud (besides more people voting than are eligible) with 100% certainty.
Vote fraudsters would simply rig the vote to some degree under the level of certainty that the statisticians use to watch for fraud.
That's why their factories are in the middle-of-nowhere China. The real ironic part is the same people who buy Apple products are the same people who complain about Wal-Mart not offering a "fair wage" to their employees.
That's not ironic, it's coincidental!
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that, is, Irony!
It hasn't occurred to you that a ban on incandescents for lighting might just exclude incandescents for heating in industrial applications?
It hasn't occurred to you that a ban on incandescents for lighting might just make manufacturers stop producing them in massive quantities, thus driving up the price for anyone who still needs them?
Alternatively: It sure is cheap and easy to buy a CRT display these days!
As I understand it, that's why you salt the passwords AND use a user-specific string (based on username, email and/or similarly constant data) to introduce more variation so that they can't use generic rainbow tables or even site-specific rainbow tables.
It was clear from your other posts, but this line seals the deal. You don't understand it.
Salts are considered non-secret. Any sort of user information used as a salt would also be non-secret. Salts (either random or based on user information) are used to protect against specific attacks, such as rainbow tables and "I'll see if someone has the same password as me!".
The latest version of Android is unknown and unseen to anyone who isn't Google or an OEM who forks over cash, agrees to install Google services and applications, etc. I've already told you this.
The code that is open is useless for hobbyists because the hardware is closed. You can either develop something that half works, something that works well on ancient hardware, or something that works but needs closed source code to be useful (either firmware for the radio, chunks of a major OEM's ROM, or Google's services and applications). I've already told you this.
So now you want to differentiate between Android and Android with Google? Well, you're 100% wrong there. Android is closed source. AOSP is open source. You know how shitty and locked down the Kindles are? They use AOSP (and their own closed source code along with it), not Android. Android absolutely owes its success, usefulness, and market share due to Google's services and applications. If you don't care about that then I dare you to primarily use a device that doesn't have them and then claim "AOSP is just as good as Android!".
Where am I getting that OEMs pay for access? Are you kidding, kid? Google it! This isn't new. OEMs enter into things called contracts and are granted access to the latest code 3-6 months before it becomes part of AOSP. The contracts involve things like agreements for transfer of funds, joint marketing, non disclosure, and integration of Google's services and applications.
As a hobbyist and someone that uses community based Android ROMs on your phone, I can guarantee you you either do absolutely nothing with your phone or you've installed the closed source Google services and applications and bits of OEM ROMs that have been poked and picked at. Not only is this technical illegal in the vast majority of the western world, it's absolutely not open source.
You sound like you're 15 years old and a real pro at visiting the xda forums and downloading ROMs. Good job! Maybe when you grow up you'll realize that the impact of open source has little to do with how you can install a half-working ROM of the latest version of AOSP.
If Android was open source you'd be able to influence the direction of the project, submit code to the project manager (Google), and have access to the latest version. You can do none of these things. You can with AOSP but AOSP is not Android. Android is moving platform. As an OEM, if you're not on the latest version you're fucked out of the market. As a "hobbyist" who downloads a ROM off of a website and shoe horns it onto your phone, you may not give a shit but the real impact of Android has precisely nothing to do with how you can whittle away at AOSP.
If you're protecting against Sky-Net SAC-NORAD missile launches I can see it, otherwise it's overkill.
Unfortunately you need a lot more when people listen to the terrible advice given out by terrible comics and start using passphrases consisting entirely of dictionary words. "incorrect equine cell affixer" becomes "incorrect equine" when truncated to 16 characters.
The ads and targeting is not what's worth it, it's the $100+ difference between the sucker price and the advertised price. Saying I like targeted ads because I'm forced to unblock them when I want the real price is like saying I like car salesman because I spend time haggling with them to get a decent price on a car.
Slashdot Mirror
So? From the viewpoint of someone standing still, he can still not move faster then the speed of light. And any time he drops off a toy, he has to either slow down slowly, or subject the toy itself to extreme g forces. Since toys arrive in a non-squished condition (and they are generally not resistant to high g, as the kids soon discover), then Santa has to slow them down slowly - taking quite a bit of time for every toy dropped off.
Each toy is delivered with the elf who made it.
The elf slows the toy down on descent, places it neatly, and promptly burns itself to death in the fire place. If you don't have a fireplace the elf will flush itself, use the garbage disposal, provoke the dog into eating it, or, failing all of those, walk outside and freeze to death. Most people confuse their bodies for garden gnomes.
Who made *you* the owner of the definition of "nutritious"? Where is the Official Definition of nutritious along the lines that you suggest? What makes that definition right? It's not a scientific term. It means what we collectively agree it means, same as other day-to-day words.
If I gave you a tomato loaded with every vitamin you can think of, plus enough cyanide to kill you, would you really argue that it was nutritious? If I told you it was nutritious in front of witnesses, and you said "I like nutritious foods" and ate it, and dropped down dead, do you really think a jury would find me innocent on the grounds that it had lots of valuable nutrients in it?
Your supposition regarding antibiotic-resistant bacteria is not backed by any study I've ever heard of. Eating antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a really shitty way of building up your immune system.
Words have definitions.
Something is nutritious because it provides nutrients.
The author of this article is a damned foodie and GMO scaremonger, AND he's factually wrong.
I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?
You have to sort of pay attention to what was really happening all along....
Previously, you could only get a fair use sample of a book, a few pages at best, in response to a search. You couldn't get the whole book. You got less than what a public library would allow you to photocopy in house.
At no time was google providing entire books still in copyright from known publishers and authors.
Now you get up to 20% on line. (The publishers finally figured out that if you read 20%, you are more likely to buy the book to get the rest).
It doesn't matter is google was making them available online in whole, in part, or not at all.
They violated copyright when they copied them in the first place. And they copied books they didn't even own! They waltzed into public librarians, took over a room, some tables, and a library employee for a couple of weeks, and photographed every book they could find. "It's ok, we're allowed to do this because we're Google!"
It sure as fuck is an argument. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN. We, The People have every right to tell IP holders to shove it up their ass, if we so desire. And I assure you that people will continue to make great art long after copyright bites the dust. To think otherwise completely ignores human nature.
"Social bargain" and "social contract" are phrases used by people who have no logical or legal basis for an argument, and want things their way just because.
I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?
Absolutely nothing. If any individual had done the same thing, or even just scanned books to index them for personal use, they'd be a rotting corpse by now.
How is this "spiraling complexity" in any way? There are standards.
Standards like HTML and CSS. No spiraling complexity there, no siree.
You're crazy. It's 2012. Everyone knows now that the best way to deal with lots of data is to encode it all into XM, then hack together some XSLT, and then pepper the output with JQuery. This way you get an inefficient data storage system, terrible performance, unwieldy code, and a rounded button with a gradient background. The gradient works in FF 17+, IE 9/10, IE 8 with an added hack, Safari maybe (we didn't actually test), and usually Chrome (it breaks every few releases and fixes itself in the following one).
When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.
Seems like 5 to me.
A causes B
B causes A and B is cyclical (or we're time traveling)
B and A are both caused by C
B is caused by C and A is caused by D, C and D are unrelated
B and A self-contained events with no direct external cause and no relationship to each other
Oh please, they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fracking, or some part of its process, causes earthquakes, there won't be the slightest change in procedure. After all, that oil's not going to sell itself sitting in the ground there.
Does money ride on an action being taken? If yes, it's absolutely irrelevant what the effects are of it being done, it's going to be done.
I like fracking because liberals aren't quite sure what line to tow.
According to liberals:
Fracking is evil when it's for oil.
Fracking is good when it's for natural gas.
HOLD IT! Now that oil companies are heavily investing in natural gas, the environmental effects due to getting it and processing it must be scrutinized!
Natural gas bad! Better than coal, but bad!
Make a documentary blaming fracking for cancer, earthquakes, etc. Fracking is bad!
WAIT GUYS I'VE GOT THE LATEST LIBERAL MEMO RIGHT HERE LET'S ALL GATHER 'ROUND AND GET EDUCATED! That documentary had some problems (it was bullshit) so now natural gas is good again, and so is fracking. However, we've got to get some GREEN companies and government regulation behind it! We can't have those oil companies using their expertise and existing infrastructure for collection, refinement, and distribution to make a profit.
That would be absolutely useless for any sort of security unless you could physically inspect the device and record the outputs of a batch of inputs.
If you can't replicate what the GPU does, then you can't verify that a given output was done by a given GPU.
And of course it can be replicated in software. It's not magical, it's a physical thing.
Not entirely true. Good security is based on 3 things:
- something only you have (your graphics card, a physical key)
- something only you know (a password)
- something only you are (biometrics, typing patterns)
As it stands today you usually have one of those things, the password. Adding in something difficult to spoof as the summary suggests is an improvement. So now you have to have a password and a graphics card with certain flaws.
I agree with your sentiments though. This is an interesting idea but seems awkward to implement.
From the perspective of the one doing the verification, that's something you know, something you know, and something you know.
Nobody comes out and physically inspects your graphics card or looks at your thumb print or asks you to present a key fob.
They all ask for the numbers programs of devices output. Keyfobs generate a specific code at a given time. Biometric scanners generate a hash given a specific input or any similar input. This GPU scanning program will do the same. These things are hard for an attacker to know, but they're not much better than a password. Someone can know your GPU fingerprint, your retina scan, or your keyfob's info in the verifier's database in much the same way they can know your password. Your shit gets hacked, the verifier's shit gets hacked, someone attacks you locally, someone is MITMing your ass, etc.
Good security is based on 1 thing: A human physically inspecting another human for each and every access request.
We don't have good security policies on the internet. We have very good security policies wherever rich and powerful people give a shit - bank vaults, nuclear missile silos, celebrity weddings. Good security is not possible on the internet because people refuse to pay or wait.
For most users, it goes like this (most important to least important): Cost, convenience, ability to spy on the ex or that bitch whore Tammy, peace of mind, weather bug and desktop buddies, security.
We can finally reach the gooey jelly filling!
Any bets on what flavor it'll be?
I ated the orange jelly. It tastes like burning.
If you want a helmet, wear a fucking helmet. If I don't want a helmet, don't fucking force me to wear one.
If you want a seatbelt, wear a fucking seatbelt. If I don't want a seatbelt, don't fucking force me to wear one.
Cyclists should be forced to wear helmets. They should be forced to register their bikes and pass a test in order to use the public roads. And they should be ticketed every time they run a stop sign or traffic light without stopping, or do something else that is unsafe. Any cyclist who disagrees is an entitled prick. These are the rules that motorists have to follow. If cyclists want to share the road they should follow the rules.
For instance, we can prepare a law according to which, if the result of a vote are cheated by more than 10% according to fraud parameter fi from the paper, then this vote is canceled.
And this even could have precise granularity, like the vote is canceled only in the regions where this cheating is detected.
And we also can add, we ban the citizens that handled the vote bureau, not from voting again, but from being bureau delegates for 10 years.
Of course it is useful.
Speaking of which, I'm now waiting for an application worksheet to test my own election here, for which I have all the regional data in a newspaper I kept.
Party A is leading in the polls by 3%. Party B is trailing by 3%.
Each party can stuff the ballot to a certain extent. If Party B wants to win the district they can outspend Party A enough to get their tactical fraud to cover the spread.
If they don't think they can beat the spread, they can just egregiously stuff for Party A instead of their own Party. When the analysis comes back it looks like Party A cheated a whole hell of a lot, and the vote is canceled. If you thought incumbents were bad now, wait til you try out your plan.
So what? A technique doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be useful. Which is fortunate, because few techniques are.
It absolutely does have to be 100% accurate when you're ultimately going to use that technique as evidence in a court of law. That's the only end game here if you believe the intentions set forth in TFA. You can't just be 99% or 99.99% sure when you need to beat reasonable doubt on a subject that covers the behavior of large groups of people. Unless you also happen to have video of someone stuffing the damned ballot box, you need to be 100% sure. If you do have such a video, then you don't need the math.
Of course, the true intention of this is to inject FUD into the system and scream "OH MY GOD LOOK AT MY MATH THESE GUYS ARE RIGGING THE ELECTION!" while the other guys scream "NO WE'RE NOT LOOK AT MY MATH! THEY'RE THE ONES DOING IT!!!111".
Without tracking who voted for whom, it is impossible to detect any kind of voter fraud (besides more people voting than are eligible) with 100% certainty.
Vote fraudsters would simply rig the vote to some degree under the level of certainty that the statisticians use to watch for fraud.
In other news, readers demand to know when Slashdot is getting getting an editor.
"Or does such outspokenness on non-technical matters reflect poorly on the Linux community that Torvalds leads?"
It's been nearly a decade since Linus Torvalds actually led the Linux community.
And this is a good thing for the Linux community.
I've put the picture (which is what everyone wants) up here:
http://i.imgur.com/vqCAu.jpg
That's why their factories are in the middle-of-nowhere China. The real ironic part is the same people who buy Apple products are the same people who complain about Wal-Mart not offering a "fair wage" to their employees.
That's not ironic, it's coincidental!
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that, is, Irony!
It hasn't occurred to you that a ban on incandescents for lighting might just exclude incandescents for heating in industrial applications?
It hasn't occurred to you that a ban on incandescents for lighting might just make manufacturers stop producing them in massive quantities, thus driving up the price for anyone who still needs them?
Alternatively: It sure is cheap and easy to buy a CRT display these days!
As I understand it, that's why you salt the passwords AND use a user-specific string (based on username, email and/or similarly constant data) to introduce more variation so that they can't use generic rainbow tables or even site-specific rainbow tables.
It was clear from your other posts, but this line seals the deal.
You don't understand it.
Salts are considered non-secret. Any sort of user information used as a salt would also be non-secret. Salts (either random or based on user information) are used to protect against specific attacks, such as rainbow tables and "I'll see if someone has the same password as me!".
Haha, wow!
The latest version of Android is unknown and unseen to anyone who isn't Google or an OEM who forks over cash, agrees to install Google services and applications, etc. I've already told you this.
The code that is open is useless for hobbyists because the hardware is closed. You can either develop something that half works, something that works well on ancient hardware, or something that works but needs closed source code to be useful (either firmware for the radio, chunks of a major OEM's ROM, or Google's services and applications). I've already told you this.
So now you want to differentiate between Android and Android with Google? Well, you're 100% wrong there. Android is closed source. AOSP is open source. You know how shitty and locked down the Kindles are? They use AOSP (and their own closed source code along with it), not Android. Android absolutely owes its success, usefulness, and market share due to Google's services and applications. If you don't care about that then I dare you to primarily use a device that doesn't have them and then claim "AOSP is just as good as Android!".
Where am I getting that OEMs pay for access? Are you kidding, kid? Google it! This isn't new. OEMs enter into things called contracts and are granted access to the latest code 3-6 months before it becomes part of AOSP. The contracts involve things like agreements for transfer of funds, joint marketing, non disclosure, and integration of Google's services and applications.
As a hobbyist and someone that uses community based Android ROMs on your phone, I can guarantee you you either do absolutely nothing with your phone or you've installed the closed source Google services and applications and bits of OEM ROMs that have been poked and picked at. Not only is this technical illegal in the vast majority of the western world, it's absolutely not open source.
You sound like you're 15 years old and a real pro at visiting the xda forums and downloading ROMs. Good job!
Maybe when you grow up you'll realize that the impact of open source has little to do with how you can install a half-working ROM of the latest version of AOSP.
If Android was open source you'd be able to influence the direction of the project, submit code to the project manager (Google), and have access to the latest version. You can do none of these things. You can with AOSP but AOSP is not Android. Android is moving platform. As an OEM, if you're not on the latest version you're fucked out of the market. As a "hobbyist" who downloads a ROM off of a website and shoe horns it onto your phone, you may not give a shit but the real impact of Android has precisely nothing to do with how you can whittle away at AOSP.
If you're protecting against Sky-Net SAC-NORAD missile launches I can see it, otherwise it's overkill.
Unfortunately you need a lot more when people listen to the terrible advice given out by terrible comics and start using passphrases consisting entirely of dictionary words. "incorrect equine cell affixer" becomes "incorrect equine" when truncated to 16 characters.
Where in the hell do you get 5 bits from?
A-Za-z alone gets you past that (52), add in 0-9 and some symbols and you'll be well past 64 (2^6).
My KeePass database lists my Hotmail address's password as having 99 bits of entropy.
The ads and targeting is not what's worth it, it's the $100+ difference between the sucker price and the advertised price.
Saying I like targeted ads because I'm forced to unblock them when I want the real price is like saying I like car salesman because I spend time haggling with them to get a decent price on a car.