I've been using passphrases for years, and my 20-50 character passphrases are much easier to remember than social security numbers. They could be a sentence that describes you, a song lyric, whatever. Their length makes them more random, and so harder to guess.
"This is a really good password." is actually a pretty decent password.
I've been wondering when people would start recommending this. Someone I know works for the government, and when she told her office's computer tech about it, he'd never heard about it, but from what I hear, he spread the idea around pretty quickly.
-except that if you go to the help menu and do a search for the word "eject", the first result is "Ejecting a disk, server volume, CD or DVD disc, or other devices".
"Before you eject an item, close any open documents on it and quit any applications that may be using files on the disk.
Select the item to eject and do one of the following:
Choose File > Eject.
Select the item in the Finder and click the Eject button next to its name.
Press the Media Eject key (if your keyboard has one).
Press the F12 key.
Drag the item to the Trash icon in the Dock (it changes to the Eject icon)."
It also makes sense that Microsoft seems to only enter very large markets, or what it perceives as growing markets.
Larger markets result in lower prices.
The fact that Microsoft can charge less than the programmer down the street whose product only sells four copies does not mean that Microsoft's monopoly position is the cause.
I can't convey this easily without sounding like a huge asshole, but I'll try.
Mac people don't want what open-source people think is a good interface. They want consistency and an easy learning curve. This means having all of your programs look and act basically the same. Menus, widgets, the whole shebang. X11 programs on the Mac feel very foreign and difficult by comparison, like they don't belong. Sure, they run just as well as they do on other operating systems, but they are missing a certain je ne sais quoi, which even the best X11 program is not going to have.
An aqua port of OO.o would be very worthwhile. In fact, I think it could be *huge*. Mac users are some of the most anti-Microsoft people around, and don't want to shell out money for Microsoft Office. Having a good open-source office program like OO.o on the Mac would be good for Mac users, OO.o users, and anyone who isn't a fan of Microsoft.
Don't blame Mac users if you don't write an application to look like the platform you put it on.
You wouldn't write an Apple IIe-type program for Windows and expect people to think it looked nice.
Why would you expect to write a program for one type of GUI, port it, but keep exactly the same interface, and expect the people on the second platform to think your program works very well?
Programs on different operating systems should not look exactly the same. If you have a program for one OS that looks like it was written for a different OS, you can expect people to see that application as a half-attempt, and you can expect them not to regard the program very highly.
And as for open-source on the Mac OS, most Mac users I know love open-source software. I have nine open-source applications in my dock right now, and numerous others on my system. Most of them have been much more successful than OO.o. I would say that 99% of the problem OO.o has on the Mac is that it doesn't look like other Mac programs and doesn't try to.
Most Mac users don't want to run second-hand programs, and second-hand is exactly the impression OO.o leaves on the Mac.
I was really looking forward to an Aqua port of OO.o.
The network pushed itself into obscurity. It's too late for us to do anything about it. TechTV is gone, and G4 should fail without our help.
Re:Don't you see? this was their plan all along
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 1
Step 5: Watch your viewership plummet, because your entire network is based on the flawed premise that anyone but a handful of people enjoy watching others play games.
I had it run all tests, and on my system, the G5-optimized version of Firefox 1.0 made it through the test with zero vulnerabilities found. My system runs OS X 10.3.7 with all available updates(7S215).
What people do dispute is your nonsense claim that spam does no harm.
There are plenty of annoyances in this world that cost you money. Even online. Usenet users, Peer-to-peer file swapping, et al, all use massive amounts of bandwidth, and all make me pay more. But slower speeds do not mean that I am harmed. If you sell unlimited internet, you sell unlimited internet, and you bear the cost of what you sell. Deal with it.
I have two domains, sell things online frequently, and still am not going to make the "nonsense" claim that I am being harmed by spam.
I said that murderers, rapists, and thieves were a bigger priority. Those crimes cause actual harm. Maybe if you had thoroughly read my initial post, you'd get that there are a hell of a lot more important things that the police need to be focusing on than the fifteen seconds of your life that you wasted deleting that porn spam this morning, fifteen seconds of time which is certainly less time than you've wasted reading and replying to my messages today.
No, I'm not harmed by spam. But it pisses me off, just like it pisses you off. I don't want an inbox full of junk just as much as the next guy doesn't want an inbox full of junk, but even if I did have an inbox full of junk, junk email doesn't harm me.
There's a difference between being annoyed and being harmed, and I actually find it a little bit scary that more than one person disputes that.
Of course they are harmed. It's just that they are harmed a little. And a "little" multiplied by a big number can be a lot.
By your reasoning a ten thousand people each stealing one second of my time each day is somehow less harmful than one person stealing an hour of my time each day. Nonsense.
No, what is nonsense is comparing spam to murder. I mean really. Spam? Murder? Not even close.
And no, spam doesn't hurt you. It just pisses you off. There's a huge difference between harmed and being pissed off. No, you didn't endure some kind of horrible mental trauma when you got that ad for penis pills in your inbox.
Was there violence, physical harm, threats or threats of physical harm to someone or their belongings?
Was someone deprived of their basic rights or deprived of their belongings?
Does the "victim" or someone around them believe there was harm?
If the answer is no to the last question, or if the answer is no to all three questions, then the crime is not one of the first crimes that needs to be looked at.
You have then robbed society of 48 man-years of time, an equivalent loss to a murder.
Wasting 15 seconds of 100,000,000 people's lives is in no way an equivalent loss to a murder. Those people aren't actually harmed.
Criminal law should focus on one thing: Preventing and punishing those who do actual harm to others. Harming someone means doing something that would change that person's life negatively, in a way that that person or those around him would be aware that he was harmed.
When someone stole my laptop on the first of this month, I felt that. I still feel that. -and while piracy is wrong, and while I don't condone piracy, the person whose software is pirated is not harmed if he's not aware of it, but I'm sure aware that my laptop was stolen.
How about the government starts focusing on murderers, rapists, and thieves. When government can catch even half of them, then maybe it will be time to go after software or music pirates.
The U.S. government works too hard trying to protect corporations, and does a really horrible job protecting its citizens. It's pathetic.
The ability to make your sites more content-rich is great, but the extra bandwidth could also mean a lot more sloppy coding from some people, and a lot of unnecessary crap from some people, too.
Things expand to fill up the space they're given. If a site thinks you have more bandwidth, they'll tend to deliver more bits, even if you don't want those bits.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is a really good password." is actually a pretty decent password.
I've been wondering when people would start recommending this. Someone I know works for the government, and when she told her office's computer tech about it, he'd never heard about it, but from what I hear, he spread the idea around pretty quickly.
There's all kinds of potential for funny copyright infringement there.
Does Opera have find-as-you-type?
Windows?
"Before you eject an item, close any open documents on it and quit any applications that may be using files on the disk.
Select the item to eject and do one of the following:
link?
That's too easy. Users should have to right-click and choose "New" and then "Folder".
Stupid Mac OS.
Please please please please...
Here's what I was trying to say:
In Google's cache of the page, it's there, but it's a 1x1 image. And the image is still there. That's at the very least interesting...
In Google's cache of the page, it's there, but it's a 1x1 image. And the image is . That's at the very least interesting...
Larger markets result in lower prices.
The fact that Microsoft can charge less than the programmer down the street whose product only sells four copies does not mean that Microsoft's monopoly position is the cause.
Mac people don't want what open-source people think is a good interface. They want consistency and an easy learning curve. This means having all of your programs look and act basically the same. Menus, widgets, the whole shebang. X11 programs on the Mac feel very foreign and difficult by comparison, like they don't belong. Sure, they run just as well as they do on other operating systems, but they are missing a certain je ne sais quoi, which even the best X11 program is not going to have.
An aqua port of OO.o would be very worthwhile. In fact, I think it could be *huge*. Mac users are some of the most anti-Microsoft people around, and don't want to shell out money for Microsoft Office. Having a good open-source office program like OO.o on the Mac would be good for Mac users, OO.o users, and anyone who isn't a fan of Microsoft.
Don't blame Mac users if you don't write an application to look like the platform you put it on.
You wouldn't write an Apple IIe-type program for Windows and expect people to think it looked nice.
Why would you expect to write a program for one type of GUI, port it, but keep exactly the same interface, and expect the people on the second platform to think your program works very well?
Programs on different operating systems should not look exactly the same. If you have a program for one OS that looks like it was written for a different OS, you can expect people to see that application as a half-attempt, and you can expect them not to regard the program very highly.
And as for open-source on the Mac OS, most Mac users I know love open-source software. I have nine open-source applications in my dock right now, and numerous others on my system. Most of them have been much more successful than OO.o. I would say that 99% of the problem OO.o has on the Mac is that it doesn't look like other Mac programs and doesn't try to.
Most Mac users don't want to run second-hand programs, and second-hand is exactly the impression OO.o leaves on the Mac.
I was really looking forward to an Aqua port of OO.o.
The network pushed itself into obscurity. It's too late for us to do anything about it. TechTV is gone, and G4 should fail without our help.
Step 5: Watch your viewership plummet, because your entire network is based on the flawed premise that anyone but a handful of people enjoy watching others play games.
I had it run all tests, and on my system, the G5-optimized version of Firefox 1.0 made it through the test with zero vulnerabilities found. My system runs OS X 10.3.7 with all available updates(7S215).
There are plenty of annoyances in this world that cost you money. Even online. Usenet users, Peer-to-peer file swapping, et al, all use massive amounts of bandwidth, and all make me pay more. But slower speeds do not mean that I am harmed. If you sell unlimited internet, you sell unlimited internet, and you bear the cost of what you sell. Deal with it.
I have two domains, sell things online frequently, and still am not going to make the "nonsense" claim that I am being harmed by spam.
I said that murderers, rapists, and thieves were a bigger priority. Those crimes cause actual harm. Maybe if you had thoroughly read my initial post, you'd get that there are a hell of a lot more important things that the police need to be focusing on than the fifteen seconds of your life that you wasted deleting that porn spam this morning, fifteen seconds of time which is certainly less time than you've wasted reading and replying to my messages today.
There's a difference between being annoyed and being harmed, and I actually find it a little bit scary that more than one person disputes that.
I am saying you are not harmed when you receive spam. Period.
No harm. Nada. Zilch. You may get annoyed when you get spam, but you're not harmed. You're just annoyed.
And there's nothing wrong with doing something that annoys someone else.
There is a gigantic difference between harm and annoyance.
By your reasoning a ten thousand people each stealing one second of my time each day is somehow less harmful than one person stealing an hour of my time each day. Nonsense.
No, what is nonsense is comparing spam to murder. I mean really. Spam? Murder? Not even close.
And no, spam doesn't hurt you. It just pisses you off. There's a huge difference between harmed and being pissed off. No, you didn't endure some kind of horrible mental trauma when you got that ad for penis pills in your inbox.
We aren't five-year-olds.
- Was there violence, physical harm, threats or threats of physical harm to someone or their belongings?
- Was someone deprived of their basic rights or deprived of their belongings?
- Does the "victim" or someone around them believe there was harm?
If the answer is no to the last question, or if the answer is no to all three questions, then the crime is not one of the first crimes that needs to be looked at.Wasting 15 seconds of 100,000,000 people's lives is in no way an equivalent loss to a murder. Those people aren't actually harmed.
Criminal law should focus on one thing: Preventing and punishing those who do actual harm to others. Harming someone means doing something that would change that person's life negatively, in a way that that person or those around him would be aware that he was harmed.
When someone stole my laptop on the first of this month, I felt that. I still feel that. -and while piracy is wrong, and while I don't condone piracy, the person whose software is pirated is not harmed if he's not aware of it, but I'm sure aware that my laptop was stolen.
How about the government starts focusing on murderers, rapists, and thieves. When government can catch even half of them, then maybe it will be time to go after software or music pirates.
The U.S. government works too hard trying to protect corporations, and does a really horrible job protecting its citizens. It's pathetic.
Things expand to fill up the space they're given. If a site thinks you have more bandwidth, they'll tend to deliver more bits, even if you don't want those bits.
Mod parent up. A lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between quantity and quality, anymore.
They're too busy talking about Scott Peterson or the eating problems of that one Olsen twin. You know, the important stuff.