Use program X they say, as if that will never fail. If it is local, I will break it. If it is remote, I do not trust it with all my passwords.
Do you trust encryption? If you do, encrypt your password database and store it both locally and remotely. If you do not trust encryption, then almost every website you visit is already wide open to you anyhow so no point in having strong passwords.
No, it's like saying: in the artic, fur is the superior material. No one said anything about wearing a fur coat anywhere else. I think you might be putting words into the conversation that weren't there.
If I get 30MPG and my tank holds 10 gallons, I know I can make any trip shorter than 300 miles on a full tank.
You don't really. 30 MPG is an average you measured (presumably) in the past. It tells you nothing about the future trip. If you measured that 30MPG while driving on a flat highway at 55 MPH and then used that number to estimate your trip through a hilly city, you'd be off, but a lot.
My whole point was that the purpose of these measures is to compare TCO of cars when buying them, not to estimate how much gas a particular trip will make. At best, you can get a rough measure of mileage of a tank of gas based on your typical driving, like I know that with my typical commute I can go two weeks between trips to the gas station. I know I can get 500 miles out of my tank doing my commute, but that's a trip I make all the time. If I add one trip to that, I have no idea what that's going to do to my mileage in advance. My car gets 1.9 MPG sometimes and 100 MPG other times.
You grasp how an exponential works. You do not grasp that the 1.7 infections have to happen to uninfected individuals. I don't mean to imply that we can ignore this disease, but by presenting a worst case scenario discounting a large part of reality is fear mongering.
Lotus Elise is a 1.4l four cylinder engine and does 150mph.
Decidedly NOT an economy car...
True, but the original point was about 4-cylinder engines not "economy cars", which was a really silly statement considering top speed is more a function of power, weight and air friction than only power alone.
Now, 18mpg? 34mpg? How much fuel do I need for 20000km? ok, how much for 13,000mi? Quick, in your head. Go! What are the savings of one to another?
In what real world situation would I be asking those questions? None that I can think of.
What matters to me is that my gas gauge says 1/4 tank, I'm about 150 miles from home and it is almost midnight and all the gas stations between where I am and where I'm going will be closing soon. Now do I need to get gas at the station up ahead, even though it is way more expensive than in my home town?
I want MPG to figure that one out. The usefulness of gallons per mile or liters per 100 kilometers is no good to me after I buy the car.
In the real world situation of car shopping. When one gauges a car--no pun intended--one estimates total cost of ownership. A large proportion of TCO is yearly fuel costs. Its trivial to compute yearly fuel costs in ones head using a volume per distance measure than distance per volume measure.
In your situation of "do I have enough fuel to get to X from here" an average figure does not help that much. A car that gets 38 MPG might get 11MPG on that specific hilly stop-light invested route. It might get 50 MPG on the deserted country road down hill. It might get 25 MPG in the cold. The figure we're discussing is far more useful for comparing efficiency of engines over long periods and types of trips and less useful to answer the "do I have enough fuel for specific trip X" question.
I get mine from DSL. It's far superior to Comcast. I have a dark Comcast jack in my living room. I get the speeds I pay for. My service is not oversold. My ISP does not block any ports. My ISP does not charge me $35 for an IP address like Comcast did. My ISP does not throttle my traffic. My ISP does not have a data cap. My ISP answers the phone within 30 seconds with a competent tech. My ISP does not care what traffic I have going in or out nor that it's going in and out 24/7 pretty much at max speed. My ping time is amazing compared to what I had with Comcast.
Yes, my bandwidth is less, but it's enough to stream HD and larger downloads still take more than instant so I just download them overnight anyhow (thinks like 30GB games). Whether I have 7Mb/s or 30Mb/s doesn't matter in that scenario.
Comcast is certainly not good internet. I agree good internet is not negotiable; my point being that having a Comcast wire going up to the property seems like a really blinding hatred of Comcast to pass on a good house (unless Comcast was the only ISP but that wasn't mentioned).
Could you not buy the house and not subscribe to Comcast? It's not like you have to, you know. I wouldn't give up a swell house because it happens to have a dark Comcast cable going into it. I might even sever the connection at the curb or wherever their property ends just to be safe, but pass on the house? Nah.
People do not have one identity in the real world, they have multiple identities. With the confines of time and space one can choose which identity to present at any moment. If the point is to equate online identities with real world identities, then Facebook would have to offer multiple identities. But that is not the point, the point of Facebook is to compress all a products identities into one over-all identity that can be easily quantized to sell to users.
The obvious solution is to ensure that everyone has (or can get) an ID. It's not rocket science: most European countries do require an ID to vote, and no-one considers it discriminatory there, because the procedure of obtaining the ID is not.
Absolutely agree, but as it stands not everyone can get an ID easily. Giving out ID to everyone is too socialist I suppose.
Changing your legal name because you don't identify with it anymore makes sense. Many transgender people do that. Here, though we are talking about people that identify with their legal name most of the time but a different name some of the time. They want to have an online profile that represents that some-time facet of them.
A rule to force a user to always use their legal name has one purpose: to prevent people from having profiles other than their "real" self. Not everyone fits that rubric. If Facebook exempts cross dressers, what about cosplayers? What about schizophrenics? What about double agents?
The AC you are replying to did not claim voter ID laws were racist. Since you did, though, I will answer why it is unfair to require an ID to vote. In 1965 we as a country enacted legislation to prohibit discrimination in voting. Unless the proportion of people with the required identification (which is above and beyond what we require today) is the same as the proportion of people that can vote legally today, then passing a voter ID law discriminates against that skew. That skew happens to be towards black people. Until we decide we are okay with discrimination and repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we should do our best to not discriminate.
Buying beer and buying cigarettes from another person and has nothing to do with voting so I'm going to ignore it as it's not really germane here.
Look at who is pushing for voter ID laws: those getting a smaller proportion of the black vote with an interest in reducing the proportion of blacks in the voting public. Look who is pushing against voter ID laws: those getting a larger proportion of the black vote with an interest in keeping the current proportions. THAT is exactly why voter ID laws are bigotry by proxy. They are worded to sound innocuous and sold to people like you as "fair" but their entire purpose is to discriminate in a back handed way.
"will get you there in about the same time as zoom stop zig zag zoom stop zoom stop and be more pleasant"
Well, if you're into the driving, it's the zoom, stop, zig (etc) that you want. If what you're into is being at your destination then time and relaxation become part of the equation.
"I've come to realize the same as I got older. I used to own a small sports car and drive my commute as spiritedly as I could. Now, I realize my commute in a large German sedan at a leisurely pace is maybe 5 minutes longer but far more pleasant and relaxing."
I think the interesting thing is that a large German sedan is aimed at a leisurely pace (or maybe a rapid pace on the autobahn, but not so much at zipping and weaving). The small sports car is aimed at turns and acceleration. Either car will give you pleasure when driven to its strong suite. The same driver in either car will move toward being a "leisurely" or "zig-zag" type driver.
Your preference for one or another, to a degree, is dependent on the what the car you drive is good at.
I think the notion that one is intrinsically more pleasurable is an illusion, attributable to your own specific situation.
My point wasn't that zig-zagging was less pleasurable than leisure. My point was that as one gets older, one tends to fiend a commute better to be take leisurely (what's the rush to get to work of back from work -- it takes what it takes) and saving the zig-zagging for times when one can maximize the pleasure while reducing the risk (the track, the country or mountain road, etc). Of course, not everyone also sees it this way, but I found that many of my friends have changed as they aged into a similar mindset--it could be my sample size is skewed of course. The zig-zaggers commuting around here tend to be harried youngsters; the older people tend to commute serenely. At the track, the most outrageous speed demons who min-max their performance are older gents.
What's the point of doing 55 in a 35 in a city with pedestrians and the like around. One misstep and they have issues to deal with that are easy to avoid by driving 35. With lights and traffic, 55 is unlikely to really save them that much time. Not worth the risk/reward.
What's the point of doing more than 65 on a congested highway? 65 will get you there in about the same time as zoom stop zig zag zoom stop zoom stop and be more pleasant, save fuel, and not call attention from the police.
If they want to drive fast they can take their track car to the track or their sports car to the curvy mountain road. When they were younger, they've probably done 55 in the city 70+ on their highway commute. They've realized it's not really worth it; there are other outlets of "spirited driving".
I've come to realize the same as I got older. I used to own a small sports car and drive my commute as spiritedly as I could. Now, I realize my commute in a large German sedan at a leisurely pace is maybe 5 minutes longer but far more pleasant and relaxing. I travel to the alps for a fun drive, or a coastal cliff-side road, or a track.
Yes, I wasn't asking if it has a reasonable browser installed, I was asking if there was one available to install later, otherwise that if could never be satisfied. Sorry for the confusion.
lol, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. i keep my g3 in my front pocket, back pocket, whatever pocket is convenient and it has never had any problem. also that link that you also did not look at clearly shows bent iphone 4 and 5.
so yeah, fuck off crapple shill.
Just because you've never had a problem with your one instance of phone does not mean that other instances of those phones do not get bent.
Why does it not appear that way? It's much more difficult to fool a fingerprint scanner today than it was ten years ago. Just because they're not perfect does not mean they're not better.
I propose setting a nine digit password, enabling touch ID and disabling responding to texts on a lock screen.
Nine digit password is better than four because it is quick to enter when you need to enter it, the length is unknown to an attacker and is less vulnerable to the dirty screen attack. The touch ID can be extracted by law enforcement but using the left middle finger or other less-common touch ID finger means they might run into the failed attempt limit before they get the right finger. Not having to unlock your phone to respond to a text message is convenient but I would disable that because you don't want someone pretending to be you (e.g. a cop responding to a text with "I have the dope ready for delivery" and then using that as probable cause to arrest you).
You know, there was an appreciable amount of time and personal experiences that Lauren had between those two quotes. People do change their views and sometimes its for reasons you or they might not understand. Ascribing her change in liking Phablets to "Apple did it to? (sic)" is pretty presumptuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Use program X they say, as if that will never fail. If it is local, I will break it. If it is remote, I do not trust it with all my passwords.
Do you trust encryption? If you do, encrypt your password database and store it both locally and remotely. If you do not trust encryption, then almost every website you visit is already wide open to you anyhow so no point in having strong passwords.
No, it's like saying: in the artic, fur is the superior material. No one said anything about wearing a fur coat anywhere else. I think you might be putting words into the conversation that weren't there.
If I get 30MPG and my tank holds 10 gallons, I know I can make any trip shorter than 300 miles on a full tank.
You don't really. 30 MPG is an average you measured (presumably) in the past. It tells you nothing about the future trip. If you measured that 30MPG while driving on a flat highway at 55 MPH and then used that number to estimate your trip through a hilly city, you'd be off, but a lot.
My whole point was that the purpose of these measures is to compare TCO of cars when buying them, not to estimate how much gas a particular trip will make. At best, you can get a rough measure of mileage of a tank of gas based on your typical driving, like I know that with my typical commute I can go two weeks between trips to the gas station. I know I can get 500 miles out of my tank doing my commute, but that's a trip I make all the time. If I add one trip to that, I have no idea what that's going to do to my mileage in advance. My car gets 1.9 MPG sometimes and 100 MPG other times.
You grasp how an exponential works. You do not grasp that the 1.7 infections have to happen to uninfected individuals. I don't mean to imply that we can ignore this disease, but by presenting a worst case scenario discounting a large part of reality is fear mongering.
While the MPG figure will be useful to you zero times per decade as it tells you nothing about whether you have enough gas to make a particular trip.
Lotus Elise is a 1.4l four cylinder engine and does 150mph.
Decidedly NOT an economy car...
True, but the original point was about 4-cylinder engines not "economy cars", which was a really silly statement considering top speed is more a function of power, weight and air friction than only power alone.
Now, 18mpg? 34mpg? How much fuel do I need for 20000km? ok, how much for 13,000mi? Quick, in your head. Go! What are the savings of one to another?
In what real world situation would I be asking those questions? None that I can think of.
What matters to me is that my gas gauge says 1/4 tank, I'm about 150 miles from home and it is almost midnight and all the gas stations between where I am and where I'm going will be closing soon. Now do I need to get gas at the station up ahead, even though it is way more expensive than in my home town?
I want MPG to figure that one out. The usefulness of gallons per mile or liters per 100 kilometers is no good to me after I buy the car.
In the real world situation of car shopping. When one gauges a car--no pun intended--one estimates total cost of ownership. A large proportion of TCO is yearly fuel costs. Its trivial to compute yearly fuel costs in ones head using a volume per distance measure than distance per volume measure.
In your situation of "do I have enough fuel to get to X from here" an average figure does not help that much. A car that gets 38 MPG might get 11MPG on that specific hilly stop-light invested route. It might get 50 MPG on the deserted country road down hill. It might get 25 MPG in the cold. The figure we're discussing is far more useful for comparing efficiency of engines over long periods and types of trips and less useful to answer the "do I have enough fuel for specific trip X" question.
I get mine from DSL. It's far superior to Comcast. I have a dark Comcast jack in my living room. I get the speeds I pay for. My service is not oversold. My ISP does not block any ports. My ISP does not charge me $35 for an IP address like Comcast did. My ISP does not throttle my traffic. My ISP does not have a data cap. My ISP answers the phone within 30 seconds with a competent tech. My ISP does not care what traffic I have going in or out nor that it's going in and out 24/7 pretty much at max speed. My ping time is amazing compared to what I had with Comcast.
Yes, my bandwidth is less, but it's enough to stream HD and larger downloads still take more than instant so I just download them overnight anyhow (thinks like 30GB games). Whether I have 7Mb/s or 30Mb/s doesn't matter in that scenario.
Comcast is certainly not good internet. I agree good internet is not negotiable; my point being that having a Comcast wire going up to the property seems like a really blinding hatred of Comcast to pass on a good house (unless Comcast was the only ISP but that wasn't mentioned).
Could you not buy the house and not subscribe to Comcast? It's not like you have to, you know. I wouldn't give up a swell house because it happens to have a dark Comcast cable going into it. I might even sever the connection at the curb or wherever their property ends just to be safe, but pass on the house? Nah.
People do not have one identity in the real world, they have multiple identities. With the confines of time and space one can choose which identity to present at any moment. If the point is to equate online identities with real world identities, then Facebook would have to offer multiple identities. But that is not the point, the point of Facebook is to compress all a products identities into one over-all identity that can be easily quantized to sell to users.
The obvious solution is to ensure that everyone has (or can get) an ID. It's not rocket science: most European countries do require an ID to vote, and no-one considers it discriminatory there, because the procedure of obtaining the ID is not.
Absolutely agree, but as it stands not everyone can get an ID easily. Giving out ID to everyone is too socialist I suppose.
Changing your legal name because you don't identify with it anymore makes sense. Many transgender people do that. Here, though we are talking about people that identify with their legal name most of the time but a different name some of the time. They want to have an online profile that represents that some-time facet of them.
A rule to force a user to always use their legal name has one purpose: to prevent people from having profiles other than their "real" self. Not everyone fits that rubric. If Facebook exempts cross dressers, what about cosplayers? What about schizophrenics? What about double agents?
They should just drop the rule.
The AC you are replying to did not claim voter ID laws were racist. Since you did, though, I will answer why it is unfair to require an ID to vote. In 1965 we as a country enacted legislation to prohibit discrimination in voting. Unless the proportion of people with the required identification (which is above and beyond what we require today) is the same as the proportion of people that can vote legally today, then passing a voter ID law discriminates against that skew. That skew happens to be towards black people. Until we decide we are okay with discrimination and repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we should do our best to not discriminate.
Buying beer and buying cigarettes from another person and has nothing to do with voting so I'm going to ignore it as it's not really germane here.
Look at who is pushing for voter ID laws: those getting a smaller proportion of the black vote with an interest in reducing the proportion of blacks in the voting public. Look who is pushing against voter ID laws: those getting a larger proportion of the black vote with an interest in keeping the current proportions. THAT is exactly why voter ID laws are bigotry by proxy. They are worded to sound innocuous and sold to people like you as "fair" but their entire purpose is to discriminate in a back handed way.
Your preference for one or another, to a degree, is dependent on the what the car you drive is good at.
I would posit that one buys a car that fits one's needs not the other way around.
"will get you there in about the same time as zoom stop zig zag zoom stop zoom stop and be more pleasant"
Well, if you're into the driving, it's the zoom, stop, zig (etc) that you want. If what you're into is being at your destination then time and relaxation become part of the equation.
"I've come to realize the same as I got older. I used to own a small sports car and drive my commute as spiritedly as I could. Now, I realize my commute in a large German sedan at a leisurely pace is maybe 5 minutes longer but far more pleasant and relaxing."
I think the interesting thing is that a large German sedan is aimed at a leisurely pace (or maybe a rapid pace on the autobahn, but not so much at zipping and weaving). The small sports car is aimed at turns and acceleration. Either car will give you pleasure when driven to its strong suite. The same driver in either car will move toward being a "leisurely" or "zig-zag" type driver.
Your preference for one or another, to a degree, is dependent on the what the car you drive is good at.
I think the notion that one is intrinsically more pleasurable is an illusion, attributable to your own specific situation.
My point wasn't that zig-zagging was less pleasurable than leisure. My point was that as one gets older, one tends to fiend a commute better to be take leisurely (what's the rush to get to work of back from work -- it takes what it takes) and saving the zig-zagging for times when one can maximize the pleasure while reducing the risk (the track, the country or mountain road, etc). Of course, not everyone also sees it this way, but I found that many of my friends have changed as they aged into a similar mindset--it could be my sample size is skewed of course. The zig-zaggers commuting around here tend to be harried youngsters; the older people tend to commute serenely. At the track, the most outrageous speed demons who min-max their performance are older gents.
Older people tend to be wiser too.
What's the point of doing 55 in a 35 in a city with pedestrians and the like around. One misstep and they have issues to deal with that are easy to avoid by driving 35. With lights and traffic, 55 is unlikely to really save them that much time. Not worth the risk/reward.
What's the point of doing more than 65 on a congested highway? 65 will get you there in about the same time as zoom stop zig zag zoom stop zoom stop and be more pleasant, save fuel, and not call attention from the police.
If they want to drive fast they can take their track car to the track or their sports car to the curvy mountain road. When they were younger, they've probably done 55 in the city 70+ on their highway commute. They've realized it's not really worth it; there are other outlets of "spirited driving".
I've come to realize the same as I got older. I used to own a small sports car and drive my commute as spiritedly as I could. Now, I realize my commute in a large German sedan at a leisurely pace is maybe 5 minutes longer but far more pleasant and relaxing. I travel to the alps for a fun drive, or a coastal cliff-side road, or a track.
Yes, I wasn't asking if it has a reasonable browser installed, I was asking if there was one available to install later, otherwise that if could never be satisfied. Sorry for the confusion.
How many communists voted for this ordinance?
From the article:
"The council vote to pass the new composting measure was a unanimous 9-to-0. No public hearing was required."
That does not address party membership of the voters.
Do those have a reasonable browser? That was one of future assassin's requirements--the possibility to install a browser after wards (sic).
How many communists voted for this ordinance?
lol, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. i keep my g3 in my front pocket, back pocket, whatever pocket is convenient and it has never had any problem. also that link that you also did not look at clearly shows bent iphone 4 and 5.
so yeah, fuck off crapple shill.
Just because you've never had a problem with your one instance of phone does not mean that other instances of those phones do not get bent.
Well, it doesn't appear to have improved...
Why does it not appear that way? It's much more difficult to fool a fingerprint scanner today than it was ten years ago. Just because they're not perfect does not mean they're not better.
I propose setting a nine digit password, enabling touch ID and disabling responding to texts on a lock screen.
Nine digit password is better than four because it is quick to enter when you need to enter it, the length is unknown to an attacker and is less vulnerable to the dirty screen attack. The touch ID can be extracted by law enforcement but using the left middle finger or other less-common touch ID finger means they might run into the failed attempt limit before they get the right finger. Not having to unlock your phone to respond to a text message is convenient but I would disable that because you don't want someone pretending to be you (e.g. a cop responding to a text with "I have the dope ready for delivery" and then using that as probable cause to arrest you).
You know, there was an appreciable amount of time and personal experiences that Lauren had between those two quotes. People do change their views and sometimes its for reasons you or they might not understand. Ascribing her change in liking Phablets to "Apple did it to? (sic)" is pretty presumptuous.