Here is a thought, if women and men think that in themselves, their children, their parents, and their grandparents that men tend to be smarter than women, it could mean that the test, rather than all those people, is biased.
I have this keen insight thanks to Mr. Y chromosome. Of course I blame poor grammar on the same thing.
The US can consider itself free of racism when there are the same ratio of black politicians as there are black citizens.
Close. The US can consider itself free of racism when the ratios of skin color don't matter. That will be a great day, but we will get there by slowly changing our own and the attitudes of our friends and our family; not by trying to force strangers to think right with the application of law or intimidation.
Every time there is a law or rule applied that forces someone to be hired or accepted because of the color of their skin, there is an act of racism that promotes the idea that the favored group can't achieve it on their own. We like to think that we're forcing people to be fair, to ignore race, but what we're really doing is forcing people to act like race matters.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of Michelle Obama, but the picture is a travesty. This kind of stupidity should embarrass us, not because it racist but because it is disrespectful. It is disrespectful to anyone but to do this to the wife of a president is distasteful in the extreme.
Yelling "You lie" during a congressional address is disrespectful. Throwing a shoe at the president is disrespectful. Playing silly games with pictures to debase them is disrespectful. Google shouldn't apologize because the result is racist, but if they're apologizing for showing something they recognize to be disrespectful, then I applaud them.
There are plenty, including members of the Supreme Court, who disagree.
Check your history for context. The term "militia" roughly equates to the the modern National Guard;
The historical context indicates clearly that the term "militia" equates to all able bodied citizens*. Aside from that, there is the troublesome comma which separates and supports both the militia and the individual right.
I think the language is clear but read and consider these:
Note that they do not all support the idea that an individual should have the right, but they do all examine the historical context in detail and support the premise that the individual right is granted by the second amendment both as it is written and as it is interpreted by the federal judicial system.
Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written supporting both sides of the argument. As the amendment stands, as it is interpreted and also as it is taken in historical context it does grant an individual right. Our elected officials have the ability to amend the constitution, repeal that second amendment and even replace it. If they do so, it could be changed so that the right would no longer be one of individuals, but they have not and are unlikely make such a change.
* - what we consider able bodied citizens has changed since the amendment was written, we now include the poor, include women and do not allow slavery. This is an example of how the constitution can and should be changed.
Of course parents gripe and blame the teacher for any failings of the children. We have "no child left behind" and "equal opportunity" and other rights that put simply mean: every child has a right to be well educated.
This is quite different from every child having an opportunity to become well educated. Parents are potential voters and voters are told that every child will get a better education (note, nothing is ever said about the children or parents doing their parts) during every election cycle. Is it any wonder that parents and children believe it is the fault of the system if they fail to do well?
I've worked with several people over the years that "do what is asked and only what is asked" in an attempt to always be right. I understand the frustration that people feel when they don't get what they are asking for, but people also don't want a solution that is technically correct and still ignores their actual needs. When managing projects, if you just provide a solution based exactly on the specifications without allowing for people to be flexible in their language of request, you may be "right" but you won't make people happy. It is always best to restate the problem in several ways and find out what the motivations are before beginning work, but a paragraph or two on a forum doesn't really allow that so I have to make some reasonable guesses based on years of experience with people who voice this exact type of complaint.
Reasonable guess 1: "Keeping them in my brain is a prescription for disaster, as my brain is increasingly leaky" does not indicate that StonyCreekBare is incapable of memorizing a single complex password, but rather that memorizing many complex passwords is undesirable. People I've moved from text files, notebooks and spreadsheets often have this type of complaint, but never state that they cannot remember a single complex password.
Asking someone to remember dozens of passwords is very different than trying to remember one. Its silly to say that the author couldn't remember one password so any solution that requires memorizing one password would be too complex. I sympathize with the problem of trying to remember too much, and know from experience both personally and dealing with many users that the problem with memory is never that someone can't remember 'a password' but remembering 'all those passwords.'
Reasonable guess 2: "but it's tied to Firefox, and I have other places and applications" means that StonyCreekBare does use that browser, but probably others and would prefer something that works well with Firefox but would work in other circumstances as well. Xmarks provides cross-browser and multi-system bookmarks and password synchronization, and is functional with any browser, so it meets the stated need even if I didn't explain that in my original post, but it also takes into account the uses that are already known. Note that I suggested a backup system that does not rely on Internet connectivity because I personally have the same needs and know from experience that it is best to have a solution that is handy first, and alternatives if it isn't available.
He actually likes a plug-in solution, but recall the objection: "but it's tied to Firefox, and I have other places and applications where I want passwords." This would indicate that he uses and would appreciate such a solution if it wasn't confined to Firefox alone. Xmarks provides the portion he likes, in a way that he has indicated he would like, but it actually isn't confined to Firefox alone, as it works with IE or directly from a website as well. The poster didn't indicate what other browsers he uses, so I didn't speculate. He does say "accessing my sites from other computers that don't have it installed" which is where a synchronized bookmarks and passwords tool is tremendously handy.
Of course I could be wrong. Convenience might not be important at all, the poster doesn't say that it is. It might be impossible for the poster to memorize a single complex password, since the phrase "I am capable of memorizing one complex thing" doesn't appear. A cross platform, multi-browser plugin that works even when it isn't used as a plugin might be undesirable because it can be used as a Firefox plugin. Until I receive feedback from StonyCreekBare otherwise, however, I'm comfortable with my guesses.
My boss is wise enough to know that reading news and analysis makes me better at my job so viewing or even responding to sites like Slashdot actually make me a better employee. In this case, I'm doing it from home in my free time, but don't let that stand in the way of enjoying your opportunity to make a snarky comment.
I recommend this three step method:
Step 1) Memorize one very long complex password. Take your time and pick something out that is long enough that someone could watch you type it a dozen times and have absolutely no hope of getting close to it. Use this password to encrypt a zip file, 256 bit AES, with separate text files for each system where you need a password. Never type this password on a computer you can't trust implicitly and save the archive somewhere safe online and on a thumb drive. Update this password list several times a year. Practice mentally regularly.
Step 2) Use the Xmarks plugin with Firefox to gain portable bookmarks and passwords with a fairly complex master password.
Step 3) Pick a password manager that works well for you where you will use it most often. I like KeePass personally. (Much of my work is done from a Windows workstation, so this is a convenience choice.)
The master password file is your personal master backup, in case of a severe event in your life that would let your memory of your other passwords become lost or obsolete. It is what you refer to if you need to decrypt something or recall a password that you haven't used in years. The encryption is expected to remain solid for a long time and it is cross-platform. Xmarks will let you keep your passwords online encrypted and shared between systems and cover your most common needs. KeePass, or similar, will fill in the void for all the other times when you want to keep track of your passwords.
Adding fuel to the anecdotal fire: I run Ubuntu on my primary workstation (not on my servers, are you insane?) and would normally wait a couple weeks before this kind of upgrade but there is this lady that I like who I gave a Ubuntu workstation to... so, yeah, I clicked the shiny button as soon as it came up figuring it would be best to know what I was likely to get a call about. It worked very well for me, no problems. My new printer still doesn't like Linux, but it is listed as "paperweight" in the lists I checked so I'm not exactly surprised. Sure enough, a couple hours later I was able to say "yes, it will probably be okay, it worked fine for me" and describe what she would likely see. I also got a chance to lecture on the wisdom of waiting a bit before doing major upgrades. Fortunately, her upgrade went smoothly as well even though her computer is older than my school age child. (Yes, the one I gave her is old, but it was free and she didn't have Internet access, couldn't have that could we?)
As a fellow Pratchett fan, let me suggest you consider what it is about the books that you enjoy. Pratchett makes me smile as he points out the ironic and silly. It is fun to read, not just in itself, but also because for a moment I feel a connection to a mind that I respect. The same thing happened to me when I was introduced to Douglass Adams: I enjoyed it as I read it because it was funny, but even more because as I followed the author's train of thought I thought things I would never have thought of on my own.
Jordan wasn't the same kind of author at all, but I enjoyed his writing for the same secondary reason. In the WoT case, it is because I would never think through the campaigns the same way without his insight, I would never plan things the same way. Jordan gave thousands of little background details so that he could build a complicated scenario in a way that remains coherent. WoT started out as a just a fun story to read, which hit me at just the right period, but quickly turned into a way for the author to build a complex world to run ideas in. The plots, characters, conflicts and resolutions were just what made it something that publishers and readers would pay him to do.
I read a lot of books, but the ones that I re-read are rare and those that I do are because I enjoy sharing the perspective of the author. I was cynical of Sanderson's ability to give me the same thing I got from reading Jordan. In fact there were a couple jarring points of transition I felt as I went through TGS. I suspect it was due to Sanderson trying to include writing originally done by Jordan into his own work. Sanderson does a good job of trying to continue the story, but it coming from a different place. I think that it could be said that Jordan created a universe and drug the reader into the creation, but Sanderson is telling the story. When I am trying to think like Jordan, I am thinking of why things are a certain way, what makes the rules and how it has to go in order to follow the rules. When I was reading TGS, it was (mostly) about what was going to happen, and what motivated the characters.
I enjoyed TGS, but I don't know if I'll read it again and again like I have Jordan. I do like the characters and the story, and I do want to get the resolutions and discover the endings, but unless it changes dramatically, I think that the perspective has changed from following the creative process of building a fantasy to telling the story. I don't know if there is anybody could have taken up the mantle of creation from Jordan without tainting the existing work, so I'm satisfied with Sanderson taking up the role, not as co-creator but as a chronicler of the story.
I have firm and plentiful opinions about Microsoft and in particular the free antivirus, but this stops me and makes me think. Certainly I would have more success in promoting Linux and certainly there would be a stronger community. Would the current system even resemble the one that would have evolved if piracy had been effectively stopped? Would the system that is evolving now be better or worse if Windows were very difficult to pirate?
I'm not able to really guess at the answers to those questions with any degree of certainty, but I do have guesses about how a MS free antivirus will affect the IS industry.
The bar for what an antivirus company must do in order to be profitable is raised. This is a good thing. We use Kaspersky and Clamwin, and have abandoned Symantec and Trendmicro, but I'd be thrilled if those companies could focus more on making the product reliable and good rather than staying at the front of the detection game.
Less proliferation of viruses and malware can be expected because even a moderately applied antivirus is an improvement over the current system.
More brainpower can be devoted to other endevors. Centralizing an antivirus system means that there will be less jobs for IT inclined professionals and, while it may hurt raw employment numbers, I have faith that those people still employable can put their skills toward production instead of defense.
With a more productive and reliable IS industry will come better software and better systems for the majority of people, people who don't care about security generally, but who are able to spend more time being productive.
Nobody can protect Windows like Microsoft. At least, nobody should be able to protect Windows as well as Microsoft should be able to. Antivirus vendors have to put in place things that weren't explicitly designed for and always have to guess whether a particular component is acting as it should where MS should be able to know, even before updates and changes are released what is correct behavior and what is malicious. At worst they should be able to identify which files are legitimate MS files and which aren't.
Microsoft can mess up, but if they do a half decent job, in a year there should be less successful viruses, more productivity for the average user and more available IT resources for production (since those resources that were previously in defense should move to production.)
Whether this will be a boon to free software as more people are inclined to find systems that don't need antivirus remains to be seen. Whether the production side will move to Linux or other FOSS systems remains to be seen. Whatever happens, I cannot help but believe that MS releasing free antivirus, for whatever motivation, is a good thing. If by doing so they create an environment where piracy can be addressed, and the real options of FOSS or closed source get a fair comparison doesn't really matter so much to me as whether it makes the computers that the industry uses better.
Most people weren't aware of OneCare. The message didn't change, it is and was "Buy Microsoft, everybody else does."
Most people don't think... that's it. Most people don't have an opinion on Microsoft's word or whether it is worth buying or how their decision to purchase a new PC with Windows affects anything. Most people don't know anything about security, don't care and don't want to do either one.
Free antivirus creates an interest in people who weren't aware of a need. Windows 7 satisfies that need, and if it comes with free antivirus, all the merrier.
Microsoft doesn't care about your personal opinion of them because your opinion has an effect measured in the hundreds at best and they're worried about sales to millions. What they care about is giving people a reason to buy something, in specific Windows 7, and caring even a tiny befuddled bit about security helps solidify that reason.
Capitalists believe in doing what makes the most sense financially. Smart capitalists believe in doing what makes the most sense financially for the long term. Capitalists want you to give them your money for whatever reason, socialists take your money because they deserve it.
Microsoft has been accused, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly, of being greedy. Their best business decision is to spend as little as possible to make as much profit as possible. In Windows 3.1 they didn't need to care about security to make as many sales as possible. In Windows 95 and 98 they did need to care, but convenience was far more important to the average user. (Ignoring ME* since everyone else did.) By the time they released Windows XP, security was an issue that they had to care about, but they also had to try to avoid alienating their customer base, so they tried to keep the convenience of previous versions. Windows Vista was the first version where security was placed ahead of convenience and it cost them a tremendous amount of public support, but it did change the expectations placed on software developers. With Windows 7 they are gambling that enough has changed so that the security of the system is mature enough to minimize inconvenience and that the inconvenience of the system will not be significant to the average user.
Now Microsoft is poised to release their new more secure operating system model, with some maturity thanks to Vista, at the same time they are trying to push consumers away from their older convenience model. They need the average consumer to see the remodeling of the operating system as a benefit rather than an inconvenience. Releasing an antivirus makes the news, it catches attention and creates a need for security in the consumer, one that they can partially satisfy with the addition of an antivirus product from the company they already trust (observation of opinion, not observation of merit.)
Now the average consumer who never wanted to think about security is given a push to think about it because to do otherwise is to reject a free product from a company they trust. Once they start thinking about it, they have a need that Windows 7 can be marketed to.
Whether this helps the IS ecosystem is irrelevant to the profit margin. The average buyer of MS products doesn't know about or care about the IS ecosystem. The fact that this improves the ecosystem doesn't affect profits, but providing it to non-potential customers would.
Vote Republican - increase Microsoft's ability to focus on profits
Vote Democrat - increase Microsoft's ability to game the system
Vote Libertarian - be ignored by Microsoft and most everybody else**
Vote otherwise - be ignored by absolutely everybody else
Don't vote - thank you for your tax dollars, your opinion means nothing
* - ME is ignored as it was, like Vista, a maturity stepping stone toward a later goal.
** - I voted mostly Libertarian last election because I hate the system and would rather make a tiny difference toward improvement than none at all.
So I was driving through Alabama, had a little delay due to some kangaroos (don't want to go into it) and I decided to just sit on the porch at the court house while I waited for my case to come up. I was just taking in the scenery when this local comes up and asks me if I'd like a shot of shine. I declined, as I've been trying to cut back and I told him that, but he insisted and pulled out some sort of old pistol which he pointed at my head. So I took a drink. He said "The missus don't let me drink neither, now you hold the gun."
So, how do you feel about holding the gun? I mean I don't want to watch House at all or anything, but if you're holding a gun and all....
You have a point. To support bypassing the censors is to support Chinese who break their country's laws. Someone who believes that countries should be left alone in governing their people should not support the flouting of its laws. Many here believe, however, that free speech and access to public information are human rights that cannot be justifiably taken by any government from its populace.
what point in time it'd be better to reject everything and just deal with escalated messages
This is in fact, the real solution. Email was not designed for the world we live in and cannot be truly fixed. The convenience and ubiquity of email, however, makes it very difficult to give up. IM, social networking and SMS are taking over the role that email used to reign alone. There will be a natural progression toward obsolescence as email is replaced.* When the consumer does not need email, that will be the tipping point.
At that point some of the solutions that cannot hope to be implemented now can begin to be considered. (Crypto-signed emails, validated servers with validated nodes and pay per email spring to mind.)
* - At some point there will be a widely enough supported solution that email will be obsolete enough in businesses that the average consumer will not need it. That's a lot of "that"s. If it were said thus, however, even more readers would suffer permanent eye glaze.
It isn't quite the same, and doesn't even do all the same things, but I've taken to recommending privoxy for IE users. It seems to take them a long way towards getting their browser to do what they want. Most of them are not terribly enthusiastic but after using it for a couple days they are thrilled. Believe it or not, people tend to view the computer as something they have to deal with, not something that will work for them. It is in that moment when I see the spark come into someone's eye when they realize that it is possible to get the computer to do what they want, that I love being in IT.
I hear this occasionally, that tomatoes are technically fruit, that something else is or isn't, so I took the time to look it up a year or so ago.
It turns out that the term fruit means "the ripened ovary of a flowering plant" and "Any sweet, edible part of a plant that resembles seed-bearing fruit, even if it does not develop from a floral ovary" and "a product of plant growth (as grain, vegetables, or cotton." (Wikipeida, Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster)
Interesting too, my first two references are driven by Open Source and pretty good, but for authoritative information, it is the closed source system of Merriam-Webster that I turn to.
I also checked out the OED definition: "1 the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food. 2 Botany the seed-bearing structure of a plant, e.g. an acorn. 3 the result or reward of work or activity. 4 informal, derogatory, chiefly N. Amer. a male homosexual."
Note that this would only apply to a state minting its own gold or silver coinage, which none of them do....
However, near the end you said that, in the current system, gold and silver are not legal tender. That's incorrect. American Eagles are legal tender.
Inflation is coming. Inflation is always coming eventually, but there is a current trend of economists to believe that the national debt combined with deficit spending is going to drive a significantly higher rate of inflation in the near future than the US has seen in many years. Inflation is pretty much nullified if what is accepted as money has intrinsic value close to the face value. If the wave of inflation hits at the level predicted by the doom and gloom mongers, then I predict that some states will issue gold and silver coins. It should make for interesting times.
The reason that waking up to a horses severed head in your bed is intimidating is because of how serious it makes the threat. The choice of medium tells you about the mind, sincerity and abilities of the threat maker.
Perhaps by Godfather XIII they'll be doing threats by anonymous forum posts. I suspect it won't carry the same impact. It isn't the ease of the threat that counts, it is the seriousness and mind of the threat maker. Posting anonymously on a forum takes seconds and indicates the mind of the threat maker, one doesn't want to put forth much effort. The anonymity is also a factor since it is an indication that the threat maker fears the consequences of being identified, real whack jobs are proud of their views.
A threat's a threat. If someone made a threat, it should be treated in only one consistent way no matter what medium they used to convey it.
If someone AC posts on slashdot that I should be hung, I call it a Tuesday. If it is really unsettling and contains personal information, then at most I might report it to the authorities. On the other hand, if the threat is a note saying "Stop posting on slashdot or the next one is armed - Love Rob" which is taped to an unarmed bomb I find in the driver's seat of my car after I fill up with gas on my way to work one morning, then you can bet that I'm going to take it very, very seriously including reporting it to the authorities and having my lawyer contact slashdot.
Grandma is a reasonable example despite some viable arguments otherwise. The point is that yes, this could work for Grandma. Few at my age have our own grandmother available to explain this to, but my mother is a grandma and I could explain it to her. She already knows how to take pictures with her digital camera, upload it to her computer and email it to her family. Soon they'll switch from dial-up to high speed (probably in the next couple months) and this could potentially save a good bit of time and effort for her. This is something I could explain over the phone as opposed to having to drive six hours to visit in order to set up an actual password protected web server.
Not that I'm sure this would be worth the effort, or that it would work as intended a week after I talked her through it, but that's beside the point.
Stating that being of Germanic descent influences your insight does not make you racist. Stating that you will make a better decision than someone who is black (or white or blue or rainbow hued) because you are of Germanic descent is racist. We should seek justice that is impartial, not justice that is "the right kind of racist."
Despite popular sloganizing* of people's words, I do not believe that making a racist statement makes you a racist. It is possible to say something stupid without acting in the same stupid manner in most circumstances. In fact, if I had to choose, I would prefer a judge is racist in their heart but rules impartially and without prejudice to a judge who is colorblind in heart but is influenced by race in decisions for political or ideology motivations. Put simply, judge Sotomayor's statements matter far less to me than her record.
I too am sick of diversity for diversity's sake. I believe that the idea that lowering the bar, or eliminating people from hiring or promotion so that you get a desired skin color should be obviously wrong. Certainly we should hope for a judge that would prefer a city who gives a test, widely considered fair, to determine eligibility for promotion to their firefighters to stand by the results. In 2006, a Federal District Court upheld the New Haven decision to discard the scores of such a test, because of the skin color of the applicants who did well, in the Ricci v. DeStefano decision. This decision was backed up in appeal by judge Sotomayor.
President Obama may have picked a liberal leaning Latina woman for political reasons. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me when politicians make decisions for political reasons. Despite the motivations for choosing justices, it is my hope that those chosen and affirmed will make decisions that are rooted in impartial justice. This should be the only criteria for picking or affirming a justice to the Supreme Court. Sadly, I expect the politicians who must affirm her appointment to act as usual, on political motivation, in their opposition and support.
* - I don't think sloganizing is a word, but then it does seem to convey what I intended, so I'm using it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a thought, if women and men think that in themselves, their children, their parents, and their grandparents that men tend to be smarter than women, it could mean that the test, rather than all those people, is biased.
I have this keen insight thanks to Mr. Y chromosome. Of course I blame poor grammar on the same thing.
Close. The US can consider itself free of racism when the ratios of skin color don't matter. That will be a great day, but we will get there by slowly changing our own and the attitudes of our friends and our family; not by trying to force strangers to think right with the application of law or intimidation.
Every time there is a law or rule applied that forces someone to be hired or accepted because of the color of their skin, there is an act of racism that promotes the idea that the favored group can't achieve it on their own. We like to think that we're forcing people to be fair, to ignore race, but what we're really doing is forcing people to act like race matters.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of Michelle Obama, but the picture is a travesty. This kind of stupidity should embarrass us, not because it racist but because it is disrespectful. It is disrespectful to anyone but to do this to the wife of a president is distasteful in the extreme.
Yelling "You lie" during a congressional address is disrespectful. Throwing a shoe at the president is disrespectful. Playing silly games with pictures to debase them is disrespectful. Google shouldn't apologize because the result is racist, but if they're apologizing for showing something they recognize to be disrespectful, then I applaud them.
There are plenty, including members of the Supreme Court, who disagree.
The historical context indicates clearly that the term "militia" equates to all able bodied citizens*. Aside from that, there is the troublesome comma which separates and supports both the militia and the individual right.
I think the language is clear but read and consider these:
Note that they do not all support the idea that an individual should have the right, but they do all examine the historical context in detail and support the premise that the individual right is granted by the second amendment both as it is written and as it is interpreted by the federal judicial system.
Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written supporting both sides of the argument. As the amendment stands, as it is interpreted and also as it is taken in historical context it does grant an individual right. Our elected officials have the ability to amend the constitution, repeal that second amendment and even replace it. If they do so, it could be changed so that the right would no longer be one of individuals, but they have not and are unlikely make such a change.
* - what we consider able bodied citizens has changed since the amendment was written, we now include the poor, include women and do not allow slavery. This is an example of how the constitution can and should be changed.
Of course parents gripe and blame the teacher for any failings of the children. We have "no child left behind" and "equal opportunity" and other rights that put simply mean: every child has a right to be well educated.
This is quite different from every child having an opportunity to become well educated. Parents are potential voters and voters are told that every child will get a better education (note, nothing is ever said about the children or parents doing their parts) during every election cycle. Is it any wonder that parents and children believe it is the fault of the system if they fail to do well?
I've worked with several people over the years that "do what is asked and only what is asked" in an attempt to always be right. I understand the frustration that people feel when they don't get what they are asking for, but people also don't want a solution that is technically correct and still ignores their actual needs. When managing projects, if you just provide a solution based exactly on the specifications without allowing for people to be flexible in their language of request, you may be "right" but you won't make people happy. It is always best to restate the problem in several ways and find out what the motivations are before beginning work, but a paragraph or two on a forum doesn't really allow that so I have to make some reasonable guesses based on years of experience with people who voice this exact type of complaint.
Reasonable guess 1: "Keeping them in my brain is a prescription for disaster, as my brain is increasingly leaky" does not indicate that StonyCreekBare is incapable of memorizing a single complex password, but rather that memorizing many complex passwords is undesirable. People I've moved from text files, notebooks and spreadsheets often have this type of complaint, but never state that they cannot remember a single complex password.
Asking someone to remember dozens of passwords is very different than trying to remember one. Its silly to say that the author couldn't remember one password so any solution that requires memorizing one password would be too complex. I sympathize with the problem of trying to remember too much, and know from experience both personally and dealing with many users that the problem with memory is never that someone can't remember 'a password' but remembering 'all those passwords.'
Reasonable guess 2: "but it's tied to Firefox, and I have other places and applications" means that StonyCreekBare does use that browser, but probably others and would prefer something that works well with Firefox but would work in other circumstances as well. Xmarks provides cross-browser and multi-system bookmarks and password synchronization, and is functional with any browser, so it meets the stated need even if I didn't explain that in my original post, but it also takes into account the uses that are already known. Note that I suggested a backup system that does not rely on Internet connectivity because I personally have the same needs and know from experience that it is best to have a solution that is handy first, and alternatives if it isn't available.
He actually likes a plug-in solution, but recall the objection: "but it's tied to Firefox, and I have other places and applications where I want passwords." This would indicate that he uses and would appreciate such a solution if it wasn't confined to Firefox alone. Xmarks provides the portion he likes, in a way that he has indicated he would like, but it actually isn't confined to Firefox alone, as it works with IE or directly from a website as well. The poster didn't indicate what other browsers he uses, so I didn't speculate. He does say "accessing my sites from other computers that don't have it installed" which is where a synchronized bookmarks and passwords tool is tremendously handy.
Of course I could be wrong. Convenience might not be important at all, the poster doesn't say that it is. It might be impossible for the poster to memorize a single complex password, since the phrase "I am capable of memorizing one complex thing" doesn't appear. A cross platform, multi-browser plugin that works even when it isn't used as a plugin might be undesirable because it can be used as a Firefox plugin. Until I receive feedback from StonyCreekBare otherwise, however, I'm comfortable with my guesses.
My boss is wise enough to know that reading news and analysis makes me better at my job so viewing or even responding to sites like Slashdot actually make me a better employee. In this case, I'm doing it from home in my free time, but don't let that stand in the way of enjoying your opportunity to make a snarky comment.
I recommend this three step method:
Step 1) Memorize one very long complex password. Take your time and pick something out that is long enough that someone could watch you type it a dozen times and have absolutely no hope of getting close to it. Use this password to encrypt a zip file, 256 bit AES, with separate text files for each system where you need a password. Never type this password on a computer you can't trust implicitly and save the archive somewhere safe online and on a thumb drive. Update this password list several times a year. Practice mentally regularly.
Step 2) Use the Xmarks plugin with Firefox to gain portable bookmarks and passwords with a fairly complex master password.
Step 3) Pick a password manager that works well for you where you will use it most often. I like KeePass personally. (Much of my work is done from a Windows workstation, so this is a convenience choice.)
The master password file is your personal master backup, in case of a severe event in your life that would let your memory of your other passwords become lost or obsolete. It is what you refer to if you need to decrypt something or recall a password that you haven't used in years. The encryption is expected to remain solid for a long time and it is cross-platform. Xmarks will let you keep your passwords online encrypted and shared between systems and cover your most common needs. KeePass, or similar, will fill in the void for all the other times when you want to keep track of your passwords.
Adding fuel to the anecdotal fire: I run Ubuntu on my primary workstation (not on my servers, are you insane?) and would normally wait a couple weeks before this kind of upgrade but there is this lady that I like who I gave a Ubuntu workstation to... so, yeah, I clicked the shiny button as soon as it came up figuring it would be best to know what I was likely to get a call about. It worked very well for me, no problems. My new printer still doesn't like Linux, but it is listed as "paperweight" in the lists I checked so I'm not exactly surprised. Sure enough, a couple hours later I was able to say "yes, it will probably be okay, it worked fine for me" and describe what she would likely see. I also got a chance to lecture on the wisdom of waiting a bit before doing major upgrades. Fortunately, her upgrade went smoothly as well even though her computer is older than my school age child. (Yes, the one I gave her is old, but it was free and she didn't have Internet access, couldn't have that could we?)
What about the Stainless Steel Rat?
As a fellow Pratchett fan, let me suggest you consider what it is about the books that you enjoy. Pratchett makes me smile as he points out the ironic and silly. It is fun to read, not just in itself, but also because for a moment I feel a connection to a mind that I respect. The same thing happened to me when I was introduced to Douglass Adams: I enjoyed it as I read it because it was funny, but even more because as I followed the author's train of thought I thought things I would never have thought of on my own.
Jordan wasn't the same kind of author at all, but I enjoyed his writing for the same secondary reason. In the WoT case, it is because I would never think through the campaigns the same way without his insight, I would never plan things the same way. Jordan gave thousands of little background details so that he could build a complicated scenario in a way that remains coherent. WoT started out as a just a fun story to read, which hit me at just the right period, but quickly turned into a way for the author to build a complex world to run ideas in. The plots, characters, conflicts and resolutions were just what made it something that publishers and readers would pay him to do.
I read a lot of books, but the ones that I re-read are rare and those that I do are because I enjoy sharing the perspective of the author. I was cynical of Sanderson's ability to give me the same thing I got from reading Jordan. In fact there were a couple jarring points of transition I felt as I went through TGS. I suspect it was due to Sanderson trying to include writing originally done by Jordan into his own work. Sanderson does a good job of trying to continue the story, but it coming from a different place. I think that it could be said that Jordan created a universe and drug the reader into the creation, but Sanderson is telling the story. When I am trying to think like Jordan, I am thinking of why things are a certain way, what makes the rules and how it has to go in order to follow the rules. When I was reading TGS, it was (mostly) about what was going to happen, and what motivated the characters.
I enjoyed TGS, but I don't know if I'll read it again and again like I have Jordan. I do like the characters and the story, and I do want to get the resolutions and discover the endings, but unless it changes dramatically, I think that the perspective has changed from following the creative process of building a fantasy to telling the story. I don't know if there is anybody could have taken up the mantle of creation from Jordan without tainting the existing work, so I'm satisfied with Sanderson taking up the role, not as co-creator but as a chronicler of the story.
I have firm and plentiful opinions about Microsoft and in particular the free antivirus, but this stops me and makes me think. Certainly I would have more success in promoting Linux and certainly there would be a stronger community. Would the current system even resemble the one that would have evolved if piracy had been effectively stopped? Would the system that is evolving now be better or worse if Windows were very difficult to pirate?
I'm not able to really guess at the answers to those questions with any degree of certainty, but I do have guesses about how a MS free antivirus will affect the IS industry.
Microsoft can mess up, but if they do a half decent job, in a year there should be less successful viruses, more productivity for the average user and more available IT resources for production (since those resources that were previously in defense should move to production.)
Whether this will be a boon to free software as more people are inclined to find systems that don't need antivirus remains to be seen. Whether the production side will move to Linux or other FOSS systems remains to be seen. Whatever happens, I cannot help but believe that MS releasing free antivirus, for whatever motivation, is a good thing. If by doing so they create an environment where piracy can be addressed, and the real options of FOSS or closed source get a fair comparison doesn't really matter so much to me as whether it makes the computers that the industry uses better.
Most people weren't aware of OneCare. The message didn't change, it is and was "Buy Microsoft, everybody else does."
Most people don't think... that's it. Most people don't have an opinion on Microsoft's word or whether it is worth buying or how their decision to purchase a new PC with Windows affects anything. Most people don't know anything about security, don't care and don't want to do either one.
Free antivirus creates an interest in people who weren't aware of a need. Windows 7 satisfies that need, and if it comes with free antivirus, all the merrier.
Microsoft doesn't care about your personal opinion of them because your opinion has an effect measured in the hundreds at best and they're worried about sales to millions. What they care about is giving people a reason to buy something, in specific Windows 7, and caring even a tiny befuddled bit about security helps solidify that reason.
Capitalists believe in doing what makes the most sense financially. Smart capitalists believe in doing what makes the most sense financially for the long term. Capitalists want you to give them your money for whatever reason, socialists take your money because they deserve it.
Microsoft has been accused, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly, of being greedy. Their best business decision is to spend as little as possible to make as much profit as possible. In Windows 3.1 they didn't need to care about security to make as many sales as possible. In Windows 95 and 98 they did need to care, but convenience was far more important to the average user. (Ignoring ME* since everyone else did.) By the time they released Windows XP, security was an issue that they had to care about, but they also had to try to avoid alienating their customer base, so they tried to keep the convenience of previous versions. Windows Vista was the first version where security was placed ahead of convenience and it cost them a tremendous amount of public support, but it did change the expectations placed on software developers. With Windows 7 they are gambling that enough has changed so that the security of the system is mature enough to minimize inconvenience and that the inconvenience of the system will not be significant to the average user.
Now Microsoft is poised to release their new more secure operating system model, with some maturity thanks to Vista, at the same time they are trying to push consumers away from their older convenience model. They need the average consumer to see the remodeling of the operating system as a benefit rather than an inconvenience. Releasing an antivirus makes the news, it catches attention and creates a need for security in the consumer, one that they can partially satisfy with the addition of an antivirus product from the company they already trust (observation of opinion, not observation of merit.)
Now the average consumer who never wanted to think about security is given a push to think about it because to do otherwise is to reject a free product from a company they trust. Once they start thinking about it, they have a need that Windows 7 can be marketed to.
Whether this helps the IS ecosystem is irrelevant to the profit margin. The average buyer of MS products doesn't know about or care about the IS ecosystem. The fact that this improves the ecosystem doesn't affect profits, but providing it to non-potential customers would.
Vote Republican - increase Microsoft's ability to focus on profits
Vote Democrat - increase Microsoft's ability to game the system
Vote Libertarian - be ignored by Microsoft and most everybody else**
Vote otherwise - be ignored by absolutely everybody else
Don't vote - thank you for your tax dollars, your opinion means nothing
* - ME is ignored as it was, like Vista, a maturity stepping stone toward a later goal.
** - I voted mostly Libertarian last election because I hate the system and would rather make a tiny difference toward improvement than none at all.
So I was driving through Alabama, had a little delay due to some kangaroos (don't want to go into it) and I decided to just sit on the porch at the court house while I waited for my case to come up. I was just taking in the scenery when this local comes up and asks me if I'd like a shot of shine. I declined, as I've been trying to cut back and I told him that, but he insisted and pulled out some sort of old pistol which he pointed at my head. So I took a drink. He said "The missus don't let me drink neither, now you hold the gun."
So, how do you feel about holding the gun? I mean I don't want to watch House at all or anything, but if you're holding a gun and all....
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
You have a point. To support bypassing the censors is to support Chinese who break their country's laws. Someone who believes that countries should be left alone in governing their people should not support the flouting of its laws. Many here believe, however, that free speech and access to public information are human rights that cannot be justifiably taken by any government from its populace.
You underestimate my stunning ability to be modded down.
what point in time it'd be better to reject everything and just deal with escalated messages
This is in fact, the real solution. Email was not designed for the world we live in and cannot be truly fixed. The convenience and ubiquity of email, however, makes it very difficult to give up. IM, social networking and SMS are taking over the role that email used to reign alone. There will be a natural progression toward obsolescence as email is replaced.* When the consumer does not need email, that will be the tipping point. At that point some of the solutions that cannot hope to be implemented now can begin to be considered. (Crypto-signed emails, validated servers with validated nodes and pay per email spring to mind.)
* - At some point there will be a widely enough supported solution that email will be obsolete enough in businesses that the average consumer will not need it. That's a lot of "that"s. If it were said thus, however, even more readers would suffer permanent eye glaze.
This is what I prefer to use to tell if I am going to need to be physically present somewhere at a certain time.
It isn't quite the same, and doesn't even do all the same things, but I've taken to recommending privoxy for IE users. It seems to take them a long way towards getting their browser to do what they want. Most of them are not terribly enthusiastic but after using it for a couple days they are thrilled. Believe it or not, people tend to view the computer as something they have to deal with, not something that will work for them. It is in that moment when I see the spark come into someone's eye when they realize that it is possible to get the computer to do what they want, that I love being in IT.
I hear this occasionally, that tomatoes are technically fruit, that something else is or isn't, so I took the time to look it up a year or so ago.
It turns out that the term fruit means "the ripened ovary of a flowering plant" and "Any sweet, edible part of a plant that resembles seed-bearing fruit, even if it does not develop from a floral ovary" and "a product of plant growth (as grain, vegetables, or cotton." (Wikipeida, Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster)
Interesting too, my first two references are driven by Open Source and pretty good, but for authoritative information, it is the closed source system of Merriam-Webster that I turn to.
I also checked out the OED definition: "1 the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food. 2 Botany the seed-bearing structure of a plant, e.g. an acorn. 3 the result or reward of work or activity. 4 informal, derogatory, chiefly N. Amer. a male homosexual."
Note that this would only apply to a state minting its own gold or silver coinage, which none of them do. ...
However, near the end you said that, in the current system, gold and silver are not legal tender. That's incorrect. American Eagles are legal tender.
Inflation is coming. Inflation is always coming eventually, but there is a current trend of economists to believe that the national debt combined with deficit spending is going to drive a significantly higher rate of inflation in the near future than the US has seen in many years. Inflation is pretty much nullified if what is accepted as money has intrinsic value close to the face value. If the wave of inflation hits at the level predicted by the doom and gloom mongers, then I predict that some states will issue gold and silver coins. It should make for interesting times.
The reason that waking up to a horses severed head in your bed is intimidating is because of how serious it makes the threat. The choice of medium tells you about the mind, sincerity and abilities of the threat maker.
Perhaps by Godfather XIII they'll be doing threats by anonymous forum posts. I suspect it won't carry the same impact. It isn't the ease of the threat that counts, it is the seriousness and mind of the threat maker. Posting anonymously on a forum takes seconds and indicates the mind of the threat maker, one doesn't want to put forth much effort. The anonymity is also a factor since it is an indication that the threat maker fears the consequences of being identified, real whack jobs are proud of their views.
A threat's a threat. If someone made a threat, it should be treated in only one consistent way no matter what medium they used to convey it.
If someone AC posts on slashdot that I should be hung, I call it a Tuesday. If it is really unsettling and contains personal information, then at most I might report it to the authorities. On the other hand, if the threat is a note saying "Stop posting on slashdot or the next one is armed - Love Rob" which is taped to an unarmed bomb I find in the driver's seat of my car after I fill up with gas on my way to work one morning, then you can bet that I'm going to take it very, very seriously including reporting it to the authorities and having my lawyer contact slashdot.
Grandma is a reasonable example despite some viable arguments otherwise. The point is that yes, this could work for Grandma. Few at my age have our own grandmother available to explain this to, but my mother is a grandma and I could explain it to her. She already knows how to take pictures with her digital camera, upload it to her computer and email it to her family. Soon they'll switch from dial-up to high speed (probably in the next couple months) and this could potentially save a good bit of time and effort for her. This is something I could explain over the phone as opposed to having to drive six hours to visit in order to set up an actual password protected web server.
Not that I'm sure this would be worth the effort, or that it would work as intended a week after I talked her through it, but that's beside the point.
Stating that being of Germanic descent influences your insight does not make you racist. Stating that you will make a better decision than someone who is black (or white or blue or rainbow hued) because you are of Germanic descent is racist. We should seek justice that is impartial, not justice that is "the right kind of racist."
Despite popular sloganizing* of people's words, I do not believe that making a racist statement makes you a racist. It is possible to say something stupid without acting in the same stupid manner in most circumstances. In fact, if I had to choose, I would prefer a judge is racist in their heart but rules impartially and without prejudice to a judge who is colorblind in heart but is influenced by race in decisions for political or ideology motivations. Put simply, judge Sotomayor's statements matter far less to me than her record.
I too am sick of diversity for diversity's sake. I believe that the idea that lowering the bar, or eliminating people from hiring or promotion so that you get a desired skin color should be obviously wrong. Certainly we should hope for a judge that would prefer a city who gives a test, widely considered fair, to determine eligibility for promotion to their firefighters to stand by the results. In 2006, a Federal District Court upheld the New Haven decision to discard the scores of such a test, because of the skin color of the applicants who did well, in the Ricci v. DeStefano decision. This decision was backed up in appeal by judge Sotomayor.
President Obama may have picked a liberal leaning Latina woman for political reasons. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me when politicians make decisions for political reasons. Despite the motivations for choosing justices, it is my hope that those chosen and affirmed will make decisions that are rooted in impartial justice. This should be the only criteria for picking or affirming a justice to the Supreme Court. Sadly, I expect the politicians who must affirm her appointment to act as usual, on political motivation, in their opposition and support.
* - I don't think sloganizing is a word, but then it does seem to convey what I intended, so I'm using it anyway.
You sir, are brilliant. Just one question, what kind of car are you talking about?