Seriously, it's time to rethink passwords because if you don't like that I write all this shit down in a spreadsheet that I print out and stuff in a binder, well, it beats the other guys post-its on their monitors.
NOT ON THE COMPUTER!
For work passwords, WRITE them down (pen) on a piece of paper and keep that piece of paper in your wallet.
For home passwords, WRITE them down and then that piece of paper like any other important piece of paper for your home.
If you do it on the computer you do not know that the system has not saved it to a temp file or something that a cracker will find.
People who will physically break into your house and steal your computer are a different threat than people who will break into your computer via the Internet. Protections against one will not help against the other.
A better technique is to come up with a sentence and make your password the first letter of each word. Then, come up with a system of your own for adding a number that is derived from the sentence. Then it's safe to write down the sentence.
Example:
This is the sentence I write down: "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers"
So, the first part of my password is "Iaaaisittsgh"
As for the rest... hmm... I like money. I'm going to use $ as my non-alphanumeric character from now on.
And we need a number... I'm going standardize on using the number of words in the sentence.
So, my sentence derived password is "Iaaaisittsgh$12"
But the only clue you're going to get is a post-it note with the phrase "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers" written on it
I have to say, I agree that it's time to stop glorifying hackers.
We need people to build things far more than we need people to break them. Building things is cool. Breaking them isn't. If you find it more enjoyable than crosswords, hey, enjoy yourself... but really, it's not a particularly admirable use of your time.
Now, making a spectacle of peoples private lives... that's just plain rude, and no more admirable than a paparazzi peeking through your hedge. No one is going to be comfortable with transparency in our society until people learn how to keep their noses out of other peoples personal business. What this "Guccifer" fellow is doing is peeping tom type creepy.
Locking and unlocking things constantly is inefficient and annoying. It's something you only do if you're surrounded by dickheads and have no choice.
My first thought is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is behind this. Wouldn't be the first time they've corrupted the Indian government. Anyone remember not that long ago when they were going to allow their indigenous pharmaceutical companies to start manufacturing and selling drugs to their massive population for cost, before Bill swept in with funding to pay for drugs for the upper and middle classes in exchange for leaving the law as it was? It was covered here on Slashdot.
Windows 7 was the first version of Windows I actually enjoyed using since Windows 2000. Microsoft lost me when they came out with Windows XP and I switched to Linux. I would never have considered going back to Microsoft, but then Gnome and Unity both tried to force their own vision of Metro on me. I used Windows 7 in the office, and was actually ready to buy a new computer and go back to Windows. But, when I showed up with my money, there were no Windows 7 computers to be had, and I needed a laptop, so I've got Windows 8.
I hate it so much. Every time I click a file and it opens a metro app and obscures the entire screen, I grind my teeth and swear.
But there's just nothing else I could install that has any real critical mass of users that wouldn't suck just as badly.
The technology that used to empower me have been fucked up at every turn by the influence of the advertising and entertainment industries. Sometimes I just want to abandon IT and go be a farmer.
The right way to do mobile computing is glasses and a glove that detects subtle hand gestures. Touch screens covered in fingerprints with buttons you can't distinguish by feel are not an optimal way to do ANYTHING.
I do not consider these studies to be an activity that increases knowledge. It is my position they create ignorance. Paying "scientists" to do this type of work makes them insular and ignorant. Leading people to believe that this research is capable of providing them answers as to how they should improve their health makes them lazy and misinformed.
As I clearly indicated in my original post, I feel that we should be redirecting resources away from this wasteful "research" and putting better tools in the hands of the individual, to allow them to understand the particularities of their own needs.
For example, diabetics are given tools to measure their blood sugar, so they can make better informed decisions about their diet. This has been going on for decades.
I had an experience when I was younger and working in a call center for a period of time, and I was able to see patterns in my own biorhythms. I'd never been the sort of person to keep a journal, I'd certainly never have thought to rate my day on a scale of how I feel and track it on a chart, but my employers kept track of my performance, and I noticed that I'd have an off week every 6 weeks. Didn't seem to co-relate with anything in my external world, was just a pattern that was uniquely mine for reasons I don't claim to clearly understand.
But if I'd been provided with access to more sophisticated tools at the time, like my diabetic girlfriend was given, I might have learned something that improved my health.
So, I don't know what YOUR agenda is, but I guess one of my agendas is to prevent career "scientists" hoping to make a name for themselves as "the man with the answers" from hogging resources, dominating the discussion and keeping people ignorant as they live in their little insular little bubbles and pat themselves on the back for being so clever.
But, it goes deeper than that, really.
Imagine that you were going to sit down and design a diet for your chicken farm. You want to maximize meat production. If you increase the protein levels in your food, you get bigger, meatier chickens. But, there's a problem... some of the chickens will have a heart attack and die with these increased protein levels.
So, you make some charts, and you determine that if you increase it to 50%, chickens will start to die, but the weight of the dead chickens will be dwarfed by the increase in weight of those that survive. If you increase it to 80%, so many chickens will die that you have less meat than before you started. But, if you increase it to 65%, you will hit the sweet spot, where the overall amount of meat generated is maximized.
At no point do you actually take the time to observe any of the chickens and tailor their food intake to what you see. The individual chicken is irrelevant to the equation.
That is the underlying attitude I see in this study. It might serve the interest of enterprises that view humans as chickens, but it doesn't serve the interests of human beings. That actually makes me kind of angry.
I got in a serious car accident and spent the second half of the year recovering in the residence I'd already paid for without going to class. Then, for a lark, I got totally hammered and wrote the Calculus exam with my mates.
Aced the exam, passed Calculus despite having not gone to class at all or done a single assignment.
I still find it hilarious, but my mom was not particularly proud of me.
These types of studies are everywhere you look. There is only one consensus among them:
One size does not fit all.
These types of studies are a waste of time and resources. They are looking for something that does not exist.
The way to achieve progress is creating methodologies for individuals to use to understand what suits them as an individual, and designing and distributing tools to give them access to additional data to help them do so. This will lead to much larger strides in fighting poor health.
What I'd like to know is, why does PETA hate chickens so much? You don't have to be a genius to foresee what will happen to the chicken species if we abandon them as a food source.
That said, being able to grow slabs of chicken breast in a nutrient bath at home would be pretty sweet, if it could be done.
It's good on so many levels. Entitled old bastard, attempts to screw society out of a bunch of money in secret, the corrupted officials try to secretly pay him to go away, but the whole thing blows up in everyones faces. Entitled old parasite gets nothing, corrupted officials are exposed and its a happy ending all around.
Confidential agreements should not be enforceable in the first place. I love seeing people who sign them get fucked over.
"if you punished them so hard that they went out of business, then they wouldn't be able to clean up" So you're saying they should pay huge deposits before they get to do such potentially catastrophic shit? Agreed.
Maybe this type of work, so important to all mankind, shouldn't be left in the hands of private enterprise?
If you sign up with Apple, they have complete control over your device from the hardware to the software, they know who you are, and they'll tell the authorities anything they ask.
If you buy an Android phone, there is no one entity that has control like Apple does.
Your position is based around the motive of the "hackers" being economic. If they're just scammers trying to steal money, then yeah, Apple is probably more secure.
I believe the motive of the majority of malware does not come from such people, is not economically motivated, but is rather written by government agencies.
No one is really that interested in stealing your identity for money. It's just fear-mongering.
Sorry, but I don't really care that terrible much about the fucked up little bastard you adopted. Children need to grow up in a home with the mother and father who created them to grow up into healthy, well adjusted members of society. If they lose that, they're permanently psychologically fucked up by it, and it doesn't really matter too terrible much what you do at that point, Humpty isn't getting glued back together.
Furthermore, your statements about the economic ramifications of marriage are lies. I left the financial industry because my job consisted of helping rich clients exploit these types of loopholes and I felt it was unethical for me to continue. I know your statements are lies.
One of the huge reasons gay rights are such a hot issue right now is because gay boomers who spent their whole lives concerned with their own decadence are suddenly realizing that their policy only covers them and not their committed sexual playmate, and they want the chedder.
Same thing is driving socialism in the US. When the boomers were young, they didn't want to be forced to care for anyone, and it worked, because most elderly had a half a dozen sons who would carry 1/6 of the burden because they love their parents. Now those boomers are old. They didn't reproduce themselves. They created a culture that devalued what few children they had, and taught them to treat altruism with contempt. Bad place to be. But there is a strategy... shift to a socialist society, ramp up immigration, use propaganda to steal young people away from other cultures and force these young to care for the elderly.
This culture is so twisted and evil it makes me nauseous if I dwell on it too long. Words don't really serve any purpose under these types of pressure... you can't convince a tick to voluntarily starve to death by forcing it to see that it is killing the host. You either decide you don't care enough to save the host, or you kill the tick.
A: 12 years ago, we expended the resources necessary to educate a *relatively* large number of women in computer programming B: The objective of that resource expenditure was to increase the net number of computer programmers in society C: We do not currently see a lot of these women from 12 years ago in the workforce as computer programmers
It may or may not be in the best interest of womens development to spend resources educating them in computer programming. But, unless A or C are factually incorrect, the evidence seems to suggest that, if your primary goal is to compensate for a lack of computer programmers in society, educating women as computer programmers is a piss poor way to do it.
We could try forcing them into the trade with the threat of punishment. We could try to create an even more unbalanced economy, increase the level of poverty among the masses and hope that the carrot becomes sufficiently appealing to motivate them to "freely" seek a career they wouldn't otherwise choose.
Or we could just acknowledge that, even though they're not going to be the ones taking responsibility for these programming problems, we're not going to pressure them, because they have lots of intrinsic value just the way they are.
The people behind this article seem to really be unsatisfied with women. Like a man who always wanted a son and tries to turn his daughter into one.
Marriage is not a contract between two individuals. It's a contract between a man, a woman and their community. The community subsidizes the creation of children by reducing the economic burden on the couple, and in exchange, their children care for us in our elder years.
That is the purpose of marriage. That's why if two people can't mate together, it's annulled as a non fruitful union without shame.
I never minded working a little harder to cover for a couple who are raising a family and paying less tax. I'll get my return back in 20 years time.
But the idea that the CEO of Apple can have a tax break for marrying a dude and me and my male roommates have to continue paying elevated levels of tax to cover for that makes me angry as fuck.
This whole Gay thing needs redefinition. GLBTetc all have one in common, and they share this quality with a lot of straight people: The idea that sex is, for them, only a means of recreation and not a sacred act of procreation.
People who sleep with the opposite sex but always use tools to prevent conception and don't intended to ever procreate are just as gay as some dude with another dude.
Let's stop being prejudiced and focus on the practicalities. If some dude does right by his wife and kids but gets together with his friends for football and buggery the odd weekend, he's OK. If some man and woman never breed because it would interfere with their ability to travel every winter and make their neighbors jealous, they are gay.
If you're not a member of the flock, it doesn't really matter why.
Slashdot Mirror
NOT ON THE COMPUTER!
For work passwords, WRITE them down (pen) on a piece of paper and keep that piece of paper in your wallet.
For home passwords, WRITE them down and then that piece of paper like any other important piece of paper for your home.
If you do it on the computer you do not know that the system has not saved it to a temp file or something that a cracker will find.
People who will physically break into your house and steal your computer are a different threat than people who will break into your computer via the Internet. Protections against one will not help against the other.
A better technique is to come up with a sentence and make your password the first letter of each word. Then, come up with a system of your own for adding a number that is derived from the sentence. Then it's safe to write down the sentence.
Example:
This is the sentence I write down: "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers"
So, the first part of my password is "Iaaaisittsgh"
As for the rest... hmm... I like money. I'm going to use $ as my non-alphanumeric character from now on.
And we need a number... I'm going standardize on using the number of words in the sentence.
So, my sentence derived password is "Iaaaisittsgh$12"
But the only clue you're going to get is a post-it note with the phrase "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers" written on it
Good luck guessing that sucker
I think that governments are perfectly capable of becoming corrupted even without Bill's influence.
You're right, of course.
Perhaps it was Duck Duck Go who were hoping to fill the void...
I have to say, I agree that it's time to stop glorifying hackers.
We need people to build things far more than we need people to break them. Building things is cool. Breaking them isn't. If you find it more enjoyable than crosswords, hey, enjoy yourself... but really, it's not a particularly admirable use of your time.
Now, making a spectacle of peoples private lives... that's just plain rude, and no more admirable than a paparazzi peeking through your hedge. No one is going to be comfortable with transparency in our society until people learn how to keep their noses out of other peoples personal business. What this "Guccifer" fellow is doing is peeping tom type creepy.
Locking and unlocking things constantly is inefficient and annoying. It's something you only do if you're surrounded by dickheads and have no choice.
My first thought is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is behind this. Wouldn't be the first time they've corrupted the Indian government. Anyone remember not that long ago when they were going to allow their indigenous pharmaceutical companies to start manufacturing and selling drugs to their massive population for cost, before Bill swept in with funding to pay for drugs for the upper and middle classes in exchange for leaving the law as it was? It was covered here on Slashdot.
Windows 7 was the first version of Windows I actually enjoyed using since Windows 2000. Microsoft lost me when they came out with Windows XP and I switched to Linux. I would never have considered going back to Microsoft, but then Gnome and Unity both tried to force their own vision of Metro on me. I used Windows 7 in the office, and was actually ready to buy a new computer and go back to Windows. But, when I showed up with my money, there were no Windows 7 computers to be had, and I needed a laptop, so I've got Windows 8.
I hate it so much. Every time I click a file and it opens a metro app and obscures the entire screen, I grind my teeth and swear.
But there's just nothing else I could install that has any real critical mass of users that wouldn't suck just as badly.
The technology that used to empower me have been fucked up at every turn by the influence of the advertising and entertainment industries. Sometimes I just want to abandon IT and go be a farmer.
The right way to do mobile computing is glasses and a glove that detects subtle hand gestures. Touch screens covered in fingerprints with buttons you can't distinguish by feel are not an optimal way to do ANYTHING.
When is this stupid fad going to end?
I'd rather live in Brazil. They still respect traditional gender roles. That trumps everything in my book.
yesterday's hardware does what 99% of end users want.
When the hardware gets good enough, we won't need carriers. That's something to look forward to.
Reminds me, I haven't looked in on Serval lately. Last I checked power consumption was one of the major blockers...
http://www.servalproject.org/
I do not consider these studies to be an activity that increases knowledge. It is my position they create ignorance. Paying "scientists" to do this type of work makes them insular and ignorant. Leading people to believe that this research is capable of providing them answers as to how they should improve their health makes them lazy and misinformed.
As I clearly indicated in my original post, I feel that we should be redirecting resources away from this wasteful "research" and putting better tools in the hands of the individual, to allow them to understand the particularities of their own needs.
For example, diabetics are given tools to measure their blood sugar, so they can make better informed decisions about their diet. This has been going on for decades.
I had an experience when I was younger and working in a call center for a period of time, and I was able to see patterns in my own biorhythms. I'd never been the sort of person to keep a journal, I'd certainly never have thought to rate my day on a scale of how I feel and track it on a chart, but my employers kept track of my performance, and I noticed that I'd have an off week every 6 weeks. Didn't seem to co-relate with anything in my external world, was just a pattern that was uniquely mine for reasons I don't claim to clearly understand.
But if I'd been provided with access to more sophisticated tools at the time, like my diabetic girlfriend was given, I might have learned something that improved my health.
So, I don't know what YOUR agenda is, but I guess one of my agendas is to prevent career "scientists" hoping to make a name for themselves as "the man with the answers" from hogging resources, dominating the discussion and keeping people ignorant as they live in their little insular little bubbles and pat themselves on the back for being so clever.
But, it goes deeper than that, really.
Imagine that you were going to sit down and design a diet for your chicken farm. You want to maximize meat production. If you increase the protein levels in your food, you get bigger, meatier chickens. But, there's a problem... some of the chickens will have a heart attack and die with these increased protein levels.
So, you make some charts, and you determine that if you increase it to 50%, chickens will start to die, but the weight of the dead chickens will be dwarfed by the increase in weight of those that survive. If you increase it to 80%, so many chickens will die that you have less meat than before you started. But, if you increase it to 65%, you will hit the sweet spot, where the overall amount of meat generated is maximized.
At no point do you actually take the time to observe any of the chickens and tailor their food intake to what you see. The individual chicken is irrelevant to the equation.
That is the underlying attitude I see in this study. It might serve the interest of enterprises that view humans as chickens, but it doesn't serve the interests of human beings. That actually makes me kind of angry.
This is begging the question:
"Do you still beat your wife."
And yes, that is what you're doing. Makes you look stupid.
Why are you begging the question?
I got in a serious car accident and spent the second half of the year recovering in the residence I'd already paid for without going to class. Then, for a lark, I got totally hammered and wrote the Calculus exam with my mates.
Aced the exam, passed Calculus despite having not gone to class at all or done a single assignment.
I still find it hilarious, but my mom was not particularly proud of me.
These types of studies are everywhere you look. There is only one consensus among them:
One size does not fit all.
These types of studies are a waste of time and resources. They are looking for something that does not exist.
The way to achieve progress is creating methodologies for individuals to use to understand what suits them as an individual, and designing and distributing tools to give them access to additional data to help them do so. This will lead to much larger strides in fighting poor health.
What I'd like to know is, why does PETA hate chickens so much? You don't have to be a genius to foresee what will happen to the chicken species if we abandon them as a food source.
That said, being able to grow slabs of chicken breast in a nutrient bath at home would be pretty sweet, if it could be done.
The Keurig was free at my last job. So were the snacks.
Apparently, you haven't been paying much attention to how the govenment has handled everything else so well and so cheaply...
Yeah, private enterprise is good at being cheap. By cutting every corner. While no one is looking.
That's the problem.
It's good on so many levels. Entitled old bastard, attempts to screw society out of a bunch of money in secret, the corrupted officials try to secretly pay him to go away, but the whole thing blows up in everyones faces. Entitled old parasite gets nothing, corrupted officials are exposed and its a happy ending all around.
Confidential agreements should not be enforceable in the first place. I love seeing people who sign them get fucked over.
"if you punished them so hard that they went out of business, then they wouldn't be able to clean up" So you're saying they should pay huge deposits before they get to do such potentially catastrophic shit? Agreed.
Maybe this type of work, so important to all mankind, shouldn't be left in the hands of private enterprise?
And what if even the free version is a failure? Can't give it away...
That's the thing. When I hear people complaining about Windows 8, it's *never* about the price. Lots of people just flat out hate the product.
I really doubt making it free is going to significantly impact adoption rates.
If their first impression is based on trying a friends computer running "Windows 8.1 + Adware", it will probably make them hate it even more
If you sign up with Apple, they have complete control over your device from the hardware to the software, they know who you are, and they'll tell the authorities anything they ask.
If you buy an Android phone, there is no one entity that has control like Apple does.
Your position is based around the motive of the "hackers" being economic. If they're just scammers trying to steal money, then yeah, Apple is probably more secure.
I believe the motive of the majority of malware does not come from such people, is not economically motivated, but is rather written by government agencies.
No one is really that interested in stealing your identity for money. It's just fear-mongering.
Contrasted with what, Apple?
Here's a hypothesis: Most malware is written by groups associated with the US government and their allies, the UK and Israel.
It's easier to just call Apple because they completely own anyone who buys their products already and Apple will do what they want.
Android isn't secure, true, but at least it isn't always owned the moment you get it, though Google does try.
Thus, the malware targets the devices that are most secure, from the perspective of those on the attack.
Add in some foreign governments and the odd purely mercenary criminal group, and there's your malware scene.
Just a hypothesis...
Sounds great. You should get buzz cuts, start a company together, build a campus shaped like a vagina and live there happily ever after.
Sorry, but I don't really care that terrible much about the fucked up little bastard you adopted. Children need to grow up in a home with the mother and father who created them to grow up into healthy, well adjusted members of society. If they lose that, they're permanently psychologically fucked up by it, and it doesn't really matter too terrible much what you do at that point, Humpty isn't getting glued back together.
Furthermore, your statements about the economic ramifications of marriage are lies. I left the financial industry because my job consisted of helping rich clients exploit these types of loopholes and I felt it was unethical for me to continue. I know your statements are lies.
One of the huge reasons gay rights are such a hot issue right now is because gay boomers who spent their whole lives concerned with their own decadence are suddenly realizing that their policy only covers them and not their committed sexual playmate, and they want the chedder.
Same thing is driving socialism in the US. When the boomers were young, they didn't want to be forced to care for anyone, and it worked, because most elderly had a half a dozen sons who would carry 1/6 of the burden because they love their parents. Now those boomers are old. They didn't reproduce themselves. They created a culture that devalued what few children they had, and taught them to treat altruism with contempt. Bad place to be. But there is a strategy... shift to a socialist society, ramp up immigration, use propaganda to steal young people away from other cultures and force these young to care for the elderly.
This culture is so twisted and evil it makes me nauseous if I dwell on it too long. Words don't really serve any purpose under these types of pressure... you can't convince a tick to voluntarily starve to death by forcing it to see that it is killing the host. You either decide you don't care enough to save the host, or you kill the tick.
Let me see if I have this straight:
A: 12 years ago, we expended the resources necessary to educate a *relatively* large number of women in computer programming
B: The objective of that resource expenditure was to increase the net number of computer programmers in society
C: We do not currently see a lot of these women from 12 years ago in the workforce as computer programmers
It may or may not be in the best interest of womens development to spend resources educating them in computer programming. But, unless A or C are factually incorrect, the evidence seems to suggest that, if your primary goal is to compensate for a lack of computer programmers in society, educating women as computer programmers is a piss poor way to do it.
We could try forcing them into the trade with the threat of punishment. We could try to create an even more unbalanced economy, increase the level of poverty among the masses and hope that the carrot becomes sufficiently appealing to motivate them to "freely" seek a career they wouldn't otherwise choose.
Or we could just acknowledge that, even though they're not going to be the ones taking responsibility for these programming problems, we're not going to pressure them, because they have lots of intrinsic value just the way they are.
The people behind this article seem to really be unsatisfied with women. Like a man who always wanted a son and tries to turn his daughter into one.
Marriage is not a contract between two individuals. It's a contract between a man, a woman and their community. The community subsidizes the creation of children by reducing the economic burden on the couple, and in exchange, their children care for us in our elder years.
That is the purpose of marriage. That's why if two people can't mate together, it's annulled as a non fruitful union without shame.
I never minded working a little harder to cover for a couple who are raising a family and paying less tax. I'll get my return back in 20 years time.
But the idea that the CEO of Apple can have a tax break for marrying a dude and me and my male roommates have to continue paying elevated levels of tax to cover for that makes me angry as fuck.
This whole Gay thing needs redefinition. GLBTetc all have one in common, and they share this quality with a lot of straight people: The idea that sex is, for them, only a means of recreation and not a sacred act of procreation.
People who sleep with the opposite sex but always use tools to prevent conception and don't intended to ever procreate are just as gay as some dude with another dude.
Let's stop being prejudiced and focus on the practicalities. If some dude does right by his wife and kids but gets together with his friends for football and buggery the odd weekend, he's OK. If some man and woman never breed because it would interfere with their ability to travel every winter and make their neighbors jealous, they are gay.
If you're not a member of the flock, it doesn't really matter why.
War hammers, smiths hammers, sledge hammers, ball peen hammers... None of these are for driving nails.