If these two groups did NOT want to perceived in the way they are, they'd do something about it.
Yeah, no kidding. I mean, Arab Americans don't do anything to stop Muslim extremism in the Middle East, therefore they get what they deserve, right? Same goes for upstanding African Americans... if they can't stop their gang-banging brethren from breaking the law, well then they deserve it when racists like you treat them like shit, right?
Lets face it, if its getting hotter and dryer down here
Uh... it's not. Hotter, on average, yes (and, again, that's only on average, globally). But dryer or wetter depends a great deal on weather patterns and how they change. For example, Africa has seen a decades-long drought due to the rain belt moving. Meanwhile, the poles are predicted to see more precipitation due to higher levels of H2O present in the atmosphere.
Work on your reading comprehension. Never once did the word "Islam" even appear in my post.
Is there some reason why one should be suspicious of Irish people?
So are you playing ignorant, or are you really so uneducated that you've never heard of the IRA, one of the most infamous terrorist organizations operating in the western world?
The West is crawling with Muslim fundamentalists.
Uhuh. Sure it is.
Notice how you are trying to make the original poster feel guilty about him supposedly living in a "cloistered little suburb."
No, I'm trying to make him feel guilty for being an ignorant idiot.
Seriously, get over the persecution complex. If you're rich and white, good for you. If you're rich, white, and ignorant of the real world, you deserve to be derided.
I didn't see anything racist about his statement. Care to elaborate?
Given you ascribed a "thug/terrorist stereotype" to two racial groups, I'm sorry, how is that *not* being racist? You literally described those things as stereotypes, and then applied them to racial groups. That is practically the definition of racism, you racist.
Maybe they are more afraid of his presumed religion, Islam, than his ethnicity.
Uhh...
a) Islam != Muslim extremist. To assume the former == the latter is every bit as bigoted as racism. b) Ascribing such violent beliefs to someone based on their race *is racism*, you fucking idiot.
Middle-to-upper class white people are always made to feel guilty about their lives
Who said anything about feeling guilty about their lives? The Slashdotters I'm referring to shouldn't feel guilty about their social status. They should feel guilty about their *spectacular ignorance*.
Do you know WHY things are like that? Blacks generally commit more crime, commit murder
Sorry, fail. The rates I cited are corrected for frequency of offence. The simple fact is, given a black man and a white man committing the same crime, blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty.
Arabs are, for all intents and purposes, THE terrorist ethnicity in the west.
And that justifies racism? No. It doesn't. Or do you look suspiciously at anyone who might be Irish? Yeah... didn't think so.
Hint: You average Muslim extremist most likely isn't living in your cloistered little suburb. They're busy blowing themselves up in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Until blacks and arabs/muslims do something to change the thug/terrorist stereotype by actually telling their kids to quit being a bunch of useless fucks and grow up and be somebody that does more than hurt others or be a leech on society nothing will change.
Ahh... now I get it. You're a racist son of a bitch. Fair 'nuff. But the least you could do is just admit it, rather than trying to couch it in conservative values.
If said league made a habit of posting anti-white hate jokes, and the members of said league proceeded to tell said jokes in the workplace, then you might have a point. Given there's no evidence that's the case, I'd say your argument is specious at best. Nice job creating a false equivalency, though.
Wait wait... so a black cop should turn a blind eye to racism in the work place because, otherwise, he may be *risking his life*?? Wow... apparently law enforcement is an even more corrupt, disgusting place than I ever imagined.
A-frickin-men. It's truly baffling, to me, that people can defend this kind of behaviour. Uneven enforcement of the law thanks to racism is a big enough problem, already. The last thing we need is the public tolerating outwardly racist cops.
In fact, most people would agree that the problem of "racism" is largely maintained by those who benefit the most from it and isn't nearly the problem at large that it once was.
Said as someone who's never actually experienced racism.
You go tell that to your average Arabic man who's avoided on the street by people who are afraid of them because he "looks scary". Or a black man who's sentenced to death by a court system that hands out such sentences to black men more often than it does to white men.
Sorry, racism is alive and well. Is there segregation? No. But to claim that racism just isn't a big deal anymore is simply absurd. And that's doubly true when talking about racism within law enforcement, for which there should be an absolutely zero tolerance policy.
Seriously, the comments on this article point out one thing very clearly: Your average slashdotter is a middle-to-high income white person who has no idea what the real world is actually like.
The problem is, cops tend to be jerks no matter who they are.
Please. First, cops who abuse their power for any reason deserve to be fired. Second, a cop who's a jerk to everyone, versus a cop who's just a jerk to black people, are two very *very* different things. The former is at least fair. The latter means the law will likely be unevenly applied, and last I checked, that violated the US's equal protection laws.
And as for racism, everyone is racist to some degree. As evidenced by it we target marketing to certain ethnic groups, fill out ethnic information on census forms, etc.
Holy shit... you aren't seriously trying to draw an equivalence between denigrating someone based on their race, and targeting marketing at them based on cultural differences, are you? Because, frankly, that's fucking absurd. Referring to ethnically-target marketing as racism makes the term utterly meaningless.
This just shows the general incompetence of government
No, it shows the general incompetence of law enforcement. So, are you proposing the government get out of the law enforcement and national defense business? Because that's pretty extreme even for you libertarians.
how the larger a government is the more likely it is to attract incompetents to it's rolls.
Huh? How does the failure of law enforcement in this case prove that "larger government.. is more likely... to attract incompetents"? Unless you're comparing this failure with the failure of a past, smaller government, finding that the current government is more incompetent, I'd say you're just injecting ideals in absence of facts.
Heck, let's do that comparison. If the libertarians are to be believed, the government was smaller 50 years ago, right? And yet, 50 years ago the US was struggling with the Red Scare, dragging innocent people before a tribunal in a truly flagrant violation of everything the US stands for, actions that, at least in my humble opinion, dwarf anything that was done to Arab Americans in the aftermath of 9/11.
So... at least on first blush, it seems to me that your supposition is entirely *incorrect*. Of course, I don't actually believe that... the truth is that, small government or large, if you place law enforcement and national security in the hands of the government, as virtually everyone believes should be the case, then those powers can, and sometimes will, be abused.
You think "pest control" is not useful? Then you've never lived in a place that was infested with mice or rats.
I'm not saying it isn't useful. But humans had no need to domesticate cats to receive that function. They simply put up with them roaming around their villages and eating the vermin that they attracted. At best, it was a simple symbiotic relationship.
Domestication of dogs, cattle, and other livestock were necessary to make use of them. Hunting dogs have to be bred and trained. Feed cattle need to be bred for size, milk production capacity, strength, and docility. The list goes on. But cats were never selectively bred by humans for the purpose of utilizing them as tools. They were simply tolerated, and eventually taken into the home for reasons we may never know.
I'm sure I could get a dramatic speed improvement running Apple II 6502 code on an emulator on a Mac Pro simply because the emulator can run faster than the original hardware.
Given that it took 1400 Linux boxes to handle the load, I'd say your post is, at best ignorant, at worst, a blatant troll.
a) Just because it's COBOL, doesn't mean it was running on crappy hardware.
b) COBOL is far from dead, in that many applications running today are written in it. Believe it or not, it makes more sense to continue to run that old code than to rewrite from scratch in the latest shiny because they already know *it works*.
Clearly humans have not been a major factor in their evolution - we have not been domesticating them for nearly long enough.
"Clearly"? Hell no. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years, plenty of time for humans to have a substantial evolutionary pressure on them. The idea that "by chance" they developed into the modern domesticated cat is ludicrous. The minute humans started feeding specific cats because they were cuter or more social, we applied an evolutionary pressure that selected for those traits.
Actually, as I understand it, cats originally started hanging around villages in the fertile crescent simply because there was food available. Eventually, people started taking them in to their homes because, well, gosh darn it, they're cute.
So, yeah, cats are more or less self-domesticated, in the sense that humans didn't really go out of their way to tame them, as they are, quite frankly, useless as far as domesticates go: Unlike dogs, cattle, and so forth, because cats don't have a social hierarchy, thus humans can't insert themselves as the alpha, which means cats are more difficult to control (yes, it *can* be done, but the hierarchical nature of other domesticates makes it a lot easier). Meanwhile, unlike other domesticates, cats have no obvious utility, aside from maybe local pest control (dog == hunting partner, cattle, goats, etc, are sources of meat, milk, and physical labour, etc).
For more information on this topic, read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
If your children start mucking around in my yard or leaving dead animal carcasses lying around, you can be damned sure I'll demand you keep them locked up.
Besides, a child, being an intelligent human being, is far less likely to get killed by a coyote or a motorist. This happens to cats regularly. And, of course, idiots who let their cats roam around are often the same idiots who don't get their cats fixed, which means lots of little cats that have to be taken in by the local humane society.
Sorry, buddy, anyone who lets their cat roam around free is an idiot, plain and simple. If you're one of those people, then you, too, are an idiot.
Meh, monads are just trickery to introduce sequencing in a fundamentally declarative language. Nifty, to be certain, but I wouldn't call them all that interesting or revolutionary outside that particular model of computation.
In other words: Those who do not understand Haskell (which admittedly is hard if your brain is limited to OOP and procedural coding), will re-implement it
This just screams a "fixed that for you" post... I think you mean Lisp, don't you?
I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders.
Wrong. From the article:
"Due to state foreclosure laws, lenders are obligated to name and notify subordinate lien holders," said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke.'
(emphasis mine)
Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.
Also wrong. From the article:
Rather than suing itself -- a stunt that was never even attempted on the MTV show "Jackass" -- wouldn't it be easier for Wells Fargo to release one of the liens to itself? Or pursue some other internal accounting strategy rather than tie up the court with nonsense?
Re:Keyloggers don't care
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 1
I recently read about a keylogger that plugs into your powergrid and can read keypresses up to 15 feet away via groundwire. There are even physical keyloggers that sit between the keyboard and box.. how easy would it be for the wife or friend to do this while you take a bio break?
If someone gains physical access to your hardware, you're fucked either way. And if they go that far, why not just install a piece of gear on the LAN and start sniffing traffic or executing MitM attacks?
Just to bring things back to reality, we're talking about the feasibility of an attack. Physical security breaches for the purpose of industrial espionage or other hacking activities are not, for most people, a concern. And if they are, there are plenty of physical security measures one can put in place to help mitigate them.
In reality, software keyloggers are the big concern. And malware/antivirus detection software will catch those. Hell, a well tuned firewall with L7 filtering might even catch the attempts to send the logged key data before it ever reaches the endpoint.
Software keyloggers can be very benign and go undetected for long periods of time too.
Again, that's what malware detection is for. I already addressed that. Why did you choose to ignore it?
Lots of programs use "global hotkeys" and similar features which function in the background to monitor all keyboard input and trigger zero anti-malwar/virus warnings.
You still need an application coercing these "programs" that you refer to to collect the data, and something still needs to send said data somewhere. Again, malware detection will catch something like this.
I'm not a Ubuntu advocate (more of a Fedora/RHEL person really) but if the well documented problems with KDE 4 are anything to go by then including Gnome 3 in the next LTS release of Ubuntu would be IMHO a big mistake.
Why? Because you assume the Gnome developers are as hideous at project management and release planning as the KDE developers?
Gnome 3.0 will almost certainly have it's issues. All software does, no matter what the minor release number is. But somethings tells me it won't be the quite literally half-finished bugfest that was KDE 4.0.
I think there is a packaged app out there somewhere (sftp?),
Ah, no. SFTP is a completely different protocol, a file transfer protocol layered over SSH that's separate and distinct from FTP. In fact, tunneling FTP over anything is non-trivial, thanks to FTP's dual-channel nature.
Concerned about security? Tunnel it with SSH.
But... if you're going to tunnel with SSH anyway, why wouldn't you just use (the real) SCP/SFTP? It's even more easily secured, and it's firewall friendly, too. For Gnome/KDE users, you can then access the sites directly using the sftp:// protocol in Nautilus/Konqueror, and for Windows users, they can just grab themselves a copy of WinSCP.
Re:Keyloggers don't care
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 1
Arguing protocols being secure or not is like arguing which unloaded gun is more dangerous....
Oh please, that's bullshit. Keyloggers a) need to get installed in the first place, b) need to not get detected by a virus scanner or malware detector, and then c) need to be installed on a machine where the user accesses a sensitive site. And most of those issues can be mitigated with a properly secured OS.
A broken daemon configuration or protocol simply requires the hacker to exploit it.
So you're telling me those are equivalent? Please...
Slashdot Mirror
If these two groups did NOT want to perceived in the way they are, they'd do something about it.
Yeah, no kidding. I mean, Arab Americans don't do anything to stop Muslim extremism in the Middle East, therefore they get what they deserve, right? Same goes for upstanding African Americans... if they can't stop their gang-banging brethren from breaking the law, well then they deserve it when racists like you treat them like shit, right?
Lets face it, if its getting hotter and dryer down here
Uh... it's not. Hotter, on average, yes (and, again, that's only on average, globally). But dryer or wetter depends a great deal on weather patterns and how they change. For example, Africa has seen a decades-long drought due to the rain belt moving. Meanwhile, the poles are predicted to see more precipitation due to higher levels of H2O present in the atmosphere.
Islam is not a race.
Work on your reading comprehension. Never once did the word "Islam" even appear in my post.
Is there some reason why one should be suspicious of Irish people?
So are you playing ignorant, or are you really so uneducated that you've never heard of the IRA, one of the most infamous terrorist organizations operating in the western world?
The West is crawling with Muslim fundamentalists.
Uhuh. Sure it is.
Notice how you are trying to make the original poster feel guilty about him supposedly living in a "cloistered little suburb."
No, I'm trying to make him feel guilty for being an ignorant idiot.
Seriously, get over the persecution complex. If you're rich and white, good for you. If you're rich, white, and ignorant of the real world, you deserve to be derided.
I didn't see anything racist about his statement. Care to elaborate?
Given you ascribed a "thug/terrorist stereotype" to two racial groups, I'm sorry, how is that *not* being racist? You literally described those things as stereotypes, and then applied them to racial groups. That is practically the definition of racism, you racist.
Maybe they are more afraid of his presumed religion, Islam, than his ethnicity.
Uhh...
a) Islam != Muslim extremist. To assume the former == the latter is every bit as bigoted as racism.
b) Ascribing such violent beliefs to someone based on their race *is racism*, you fucking idiot.
Middle-to-upper class white people are always made to feel guilty about their lives
Who said anything about feeling guilty about their lives? The Slashdotters I'm referring to shouldn't feel guilty about their social status. They should feel guilty about their *spectacular ignorance*.
Do you know WHY things are like that? Blacks generally commit more crime, commit murder
Sorry, fail. The rates I cited are corrected for frequency of offence. The simple fact is, given a black man and a white man committing the same crime, blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty.
Arabs are, for all intents and purposes, THE terrorist ethnicity in the west.
And that justifies racism? No. It doesn't. Or do you look suspiciously at anyone who might be Irish? Yeah... didn't think so.
Hint: You average Muslim extremist most likely isn't living in your cloistered little suburb. They're busy blowing themselves up in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Until blacks and arabs/muslims do something to change the thug/terrorist stereotype by actually telling their kids to quit being a bunch of useless fucks and grow up and be somebody that does more than hurt others or be a leech on society nothing will change.
Ahh... now I get it. You're a racist son of a bitch. Fair 'nuff. But the least you could do is just admit it, rather than trying to couch it in conservative values.
If said league made a habit of posting anti-white hate jokes, and the members of said league proceeded to tell said jokes in the workplace, then you might have a point. Given there's no evidence that's the case, I'd say your argument is specious at best. Nice job creating a false equivalency, though.
Wait wait... so a black cop should turn a blind eye to racism in the work place because, otherwise, he may be *risking his life*?? Wow... apparently law enforcement is an even more corrupt, disgusting place than I ever imagined.
A-frickin-men. It's truly baffling, to me, that people can defend this kind of behaviour. Uneven enforcement of the law thanks to racism is a big enough problem, already. The last thing we need is the public tolerating outwardly racist cops.
In fact, most people would agree that the problem of "racism" is largely maintained by those who benefit the most from it and isn't nearly the problem at large that it once was.
Said as someone who's never actually experienced racism.
You go tell that to your average Arabic man who's avoided on the street by people who are afraid of them because he "looks scary". Or a black man who's sentenced to death by a court system that hands out such sentences to black men more often than it does to white men.
Sorry, racism is alive and well. Is there segregation? No. But to claim that racism just isn't a big deal anymore is simply absurd. And that's doubly true when talking about racism within law enforcement, for which there should be an absolutely zero tolerance policy.
Seriously, the comments on this article point out one thing very clearly: Your average slashdotter is a middle-to-high income white person who has no idea what the real world is actually like.
The problem is, cops tend to be jerks no matter who they are.
Please. First, cops who abuse their power for any reason deserve to be fired. Second, a cop who's a jerk to everyone, versus a cop who's just a jerk to black people, are two very *very* different things. The former is at least fair. The latter means the law will likely be unevenly applied, and last I checked, that violated the US's equal protection laws.
And as for racism, everyone is racist to some degree. As evidenced by it we target marketing to certain ethnic groups, fill out ethnic information on census forms, etc.
Holy shit... you aren't seriously trying to draw an equivalence between denigrating someone based on their race, and targeting marketing at them based on cultural differences, are you? Because, frankly, that's fucking absurd. Referring to ethnically-target marketing as racism makes the term utterly meaningless.
This just shows the general incompetence of government
No, it shows the general incompetence of law enforcement. So, are you proposing the government get out of the law enforcement and national defense business? Because that's pretty extreme even for you libertarians.
how the larger a government is the more likely it is to attract incompetents to it's rolls.
Huh? How does the failure of law enforcement in this case prove that "larger government .. is more likely ... to attract incompetents"? Unless you're comparing this failure with the failure of a past, smaller government, finding that the current government is more incompetent, I'd say you're just injecting ideals in absence of facts.
Heck, let's do that comparison. If the libertarians are to be believed, the government was smaller 50 years ago, right? And yet, 50 years ago the US was struggling with the Red Scare, dragging innocent people before a tribunal in a truly flagrant violation of everything the US stands for, actions that, at least in my humble opinion, dwarf anything that was done to Arab Americans in the aftermath of 9/11.
So... at least on first blush, it seems to me that your supposition is entirely *incorrect*. Of course, I don't actually believe that... the truth is that, small government or large, if you place law enforcement and national security in the hands of the government, as virtually everyone believes should be the case, then those powers can, and sometimes will, be abused.
You think "pest control" is not useful? Then you've never lived in a place that was infested with mice or rats.
I'm not saying it isn't useful. But humans had no need to domesticate cats to receive that function. They simply put up with them roaming around their villages and eating the vermin that they attracted. At best, it was a simple symbiotic relationship.
Domestication of dogs, cattle, and other livestock were necessary to make use of them. Hunting dogs have to be bred and trained. Feed cattle need to be bred for size, milk production capacity, strength, and docility. The list goes on. But cats were never selectively bred by humans for the purpose of utilizing them as tools. They were simply tolerated, and eventually taken into the home for reasons we may never know.
I'm sure I could get a dramatic speed improvement running Apple II 6502 code on an emulator on a Mac Pro simply because the emulator can run faster than the original hardware.
Given that it took 1400 Linux boxes to handle the load, I'd say your post is, at best ignorant, at worst, a blatant troll.
a) Just because it's COBOL, doesn't mean it was running on crappy hardware.
b) COBOL is far from dead, in that many applications running today are written in it. Believe it or not, it makes more sense to continue to run that old code than to rewrite from scratch in the latest shiny because they already know *it works*.
Clearly humans have not been a major factor in their evolution - we have not been domesticating them for nearly long enough.
"Clearly"? Hell no. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years, plenty of time for humans to have a substantial evolutionary pressure on them. The idea that "by chance" they developed into the modern domesticated cat is ludicrous. The minute humans started feeding specific cats because they were cuter or more social, we applied an evolutionary pressure that selected for those traits.
Self domesticated? are you nuts?
Actually, as I understand it, cats originally started hanging around villages in the fertile crescent simply because there was food available. Eventually, people started taking them in to their homes because, well, gosh darn it, they're cute.
So, yeah, cats are more or less self-domesticated, in the sense that humans didn't really go out of their way to tame them, as they are, quite frankly, useless as far as domesticates go: Unlike dogs, cattle, and so forth, because cats don't have a social hierarchy, thus humans can't insert themselves as the alpha, which means cats are more difficult to control (yes, it *can* be done, but the hierarchical nature of other domesticates makes it a lot easier). Meanwhile, unlike other domesticates, cats have no obvious utility, aside from maybe local pest control (dog == hunting partner, cattle, goats, etc, are sources of meat, milk, and physical labour, etc).
For more information on this topic, read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
If your children start mucking around in my yard or leaving dead animal carcasses lying around, you can be damned sure I'll demand you keep them locked up.
Besides, a child, being an intelligent human being, is far less likely to get killed by a coyote or a motorist. This happens to cats regularly. And, of course, idiots who let their cats roam around are often the same idiots who don't get their cats fixed, which means lots of little cats that have to be taken in by the local humane society.
Sorry, buddy, anyone who lets their cat roam around free is an idiot, plain and simple. If you're one of those people, then you, too, are an idiot.
Lisp is not a functional language. Lisp supports functional, procedural and a variety of OO programming styles.
Wait, I don't get it. Either Lisp isn't a functional language, or it supports functional programming. Pick one.
Granted, Lisp isn't a *pure* functional language, something which I'm sure upsets many a Haskell fan, but that's a separate issue.
Meh, monads are just trickery to introduce sequencing in a fundamentally declarative language. Nifty, to be certain, but I wouldn't call them all that interesting or revolutionary outside that particular model of computation.
In other words: Those who do not understand Haskell (which admittedly is hard if your brain is limited to OOP and procedural coding), will re-implement it
This just screams a "fixed that for you" post... I think you mean Lisp, don't you?
I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders.
Wrong. From the article:
(emphasis mine)
Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.
Also wrong. From the article:
I recently read about a keylogger that plugs into your powergrid and can read keypresses up to 15 feet away via groundwire. There are even physical keyloggers that sit between the keyboard and box.. how easy would it be for the wife or friend to do this while you take a bio break?
If someone gains physical access to your hardware, you're fucked either way. And if they go that far, why not just install a piece of gear on the LAN and start sniffing traffic or executing MitM attacks?
Just to bring things back to reality, we're talking about the feasibility of an attack. Physical security breaches for the purpose of industrial espionage or other hacking activities are not, for most people, a concern. And if they are, there are plenty of physical security measures one can put in place to help mitigate them.
In reality, software keyloggers are the big concern. And malware/antivirus detection software will catch those. Hell, a well tuned firewall with L7 filtering might even catch the attempts to send the logged key data before it ever reaches the endpoint.
Software keyloggers can be very benign and go undetected for long periods of time too.
Again, that's what malware detection is for. I already addressed that. Why did you choose to ignore it?
Lots of programs use "global hotkeys" and similar features which function in the background to monitor all keyboard input and trigger zero anti-malwar/virus warnings.
You still need an application coercing these "programs" that you refer to to collect the data, and something still needs to send said data somewhere. Again, malware detection will catch something like this.
I'm not a Ubuntu advocate (more of a Fedora/RHEL person really) but if the well documented problems with KDE 4 are anything to go by then including Gnome 3 in the next LTS release of Ubuntu would be IMHO a big mistake.
Why? Because you assume the Gnome developers are as hideous at project management and release planning as the KDE developers?
Gnome 3.0 will almost certainly have it's issues. All software does, no matter what the minor release number is. But somethings tells me it won't be the quite literally half-finished bugfest that was KDE 4.0.
Here's what you said:
ROFL, and you misread a *third* time. Honestly, you desperately need to work on your reading comprehension.
Hint: I am not, in fact, Atmchicago.
I think there is a packaged app out there somewhere (sftp?),
Ah, no. SFTP is a completely different protocol, a file transfer protocol layered over SSH that's separate and distinct from FTP. In fact, tunneling FTP over anything is non-trivial, thanks to FTP's dual-channel nature.
Concerned about security? Tunnel it with SSH.
But... if you're going to tunnel with SSH anyway, why wouldn't you just use (the real) SCP/SFTP? It's even more easily secured, and it's firewall friendly, too. For Gnome/KDE users, you can then access the sites directly using the sftp:// protocol in Nautilus/Konqueror, and for Windows users, they can just grab themselves a copy of WinSCP.
Arguing protocols being secure or not is like arguing which unloaded gun is more dangerous....
Oh please, that's bullshit. Keyloggers a) need to get installed in the first place, b) need to not get detected by a virus scanner or malware detector, and then c) need to be installed on a machine where the user accesses a sensitive site. And most of those issues can be mitigated with a properly secured OS.
A broken daemon configuration or protocol simply requires the hacker to exploit it.
So you're telling me those are equivalent? Please...