Most people do not mean literally 100% exact extremes. 1 Atom literally makes an absolute statement false but practically speaking when we say NONE we normal people have THRESHOLDS and so does science and math when we round off and have acceptable margins of error. We don't have to specify such things except in an academic paper. It doesn't mean that the person has no clue; furthermore, even if they have no clue the statement can still be true. I wonder how somebody like you can function in society without being able to selectively disabling anal mode, you literal minded time waster.
Lack of security education and the use cases involved is why we continue to have this disaster:
Account Universally Unique Identifiers are needed and just like your email should be public knowledge and able to be changed (but not without some difficulty.) It is illegal to track people using SSN or verify their identity with SSN but that has been going on since the start because people didn't LEARN enough to separate the use cases. Keep some uses illegal, but address the use cases and allow it as a universal unique identifier everywhere (with legal limits-- you can't force everybody post comments online using their UUID as their account name.)
SSN is just fine to CONTINUE to use as a citizen number. Let them be published. Children born after X date get a smarter UUID. Something easy to remember, base33 with only 6 characters... 3 for time/place of birth and 3 as a serial number. [A-Z0-9] but remove [OZI] to avoid confusion with [051].
Identity will require 3rd party verification-- by government and allow for other parties to sign on as well.
Use Cases: Age verification, Endorsements, Tax Id, ownerships, claims, signing, HIDDEN anonymous virtual identities.
Multiple IDs are possible and SHOULD exist. Drinking Age is fine with a photo ID validated by 2D barcode of a digital photo. No identity required-- anonymous age verification!
Online age verification, smart chip... difficult to copy -- again, no identity given whatsoever. A pin could be used SOMETIMES... skydiving vs porn depends on how strong a verification step is needed if you need a pin.
Hidden anonymous identity--- as many as you want but the government with a warrant can discover your true identity. You could blockchain all of your aliases. Corporations, Contracts-- all will NOT know your identity or track you precisely with this info-- but lawsuits and crimes would allow in certain cases your alias chain to be tracked down in court (but not disclosed to corps.) Rent a car, steal it-- get sued and the rental service wins but never knows who you are the whole time; but the cops who arrest you know. Credit cards etc could be done using something like this... bankruptcy or identity protection situations could "reset" you while still maintaining an official secret trail.
Biometrics: Tattoo your SSN on your fingers and use that as your password. Biometrics also fail at 5th amendment protections. iPhone X: don't put your password on your forehead, make forehead your password!
Stop turning off your brain whenever conspiracy comes up!
If you have any significant social experience and reasonable intelligence you've noticed conspiracies or participated in them! A little bit of watching reality tv shows: groups of people plotting against each other for some advantage. That IS conspiracy; I've seen so little TV I suspect it must be a big feature of TV given my small sample size. No tinfoil hats are required. Hey, lets tell our parents we are doing X when we are actually doing Y! = conspiracy.
MOST of what the FBI does is criminal conspiracy investigation! (my source? my FBI recruiter.) Great journalists are made (and get awards for) investigating and exposing conspiracies. Just look at any list of journalism award winners-- I bet you most are conspiracy investigations.
Yes there are stupid conspiracies and reasoning from unknowns yields poor success rates. Profile a criminal type and you operate the unknown using stereotyped behavior patterns... individuals or groups (conspiracies require >=2)
I was not specific - I said under most situations. I was NOT specifically referring to water. Actually, I was thinking paint and then gasoline both which took way too long to catch up with expert opinion (which should be enough when health and safety are involved... except profit $$$ so then it has to be 100% scientific consensus...)
As far as water, a quick google will show recently REVISED lower levels of Pb not that long ago...(CDC) which supports MY point - the thresholds keep changing and usually they go down. Furthermore, a single government's policy is not the best source for a factual basis on a question of science/reality. Infrastructure costs influence policy making. duh...
The BEST threshold (zero risk ideal) vs the HEALTHY threshold (negligible risk) vs SAFE threshold (politically acceptable risk... unlike the other two it is a subjective value.) Thresholds are involved at multiple levels and influenced by many factors at each level from policy to science to data collection.
Given the history of big corporations influencing dosage levels, we do not have to be a conspiracy nutcase (or somewhat fake nutcase) like Alex Jones to realistically assume powerful forces are going to be trying their best to corrupt the whole subject.
Then we have the history of science moving slowly due to funding etc, as well as being wrong for a while on top of the propaganda and corruption making it move slower. Remember when Pb was not a problem? Then we had various levels of acceptable Pb under different situations and finally after a REALLY LONG TIME the conclusion that there really is NO safe acceptable level Pb under most situations.
The stuff hasn't been around long enough to see long term problems and even so, if the problems can be kept close to the margins of error and if symptoms between people differ even slightly you divide the population so that the largest groups fall too close to error margins. I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to add something to make it WORSE to diversify symptoms... someday they WILL do something like this. because profits... duh.
Even old accepted standard tests such as the amount of Vitamin C we should have just have not been revised with better studies involving more than 1 man getting scurvy... plus there is the whole matter of what is a healthy amount vs what threshold is so bad symptoms develop. In this case, it could be the healthy amount is 3x as high as the minimum mean average.... why use a mean average?
I live in mosquito mecca. Birds do nothing for me. Imported Chinese dragonflies have made the biggest human impact against them. However, bats help greatly - we've noticed an unbelievable improvement since putting in bat houses in our yards. (The state can't put them every other house but the dragonflies helped the whole area greatly.)
Many birds have gone extinct because of us and we didn't know or if we did we didn't do anything; besides, we have lots of tiny birds and losing multiple species of tiny birds because of our house cats. We don't have tons of bats and they have a different job-- a better job: eating annoying bugs.
So many PhDs in economics didn't learn Marx. That man had an impact and did such brilliant work that it illustrates how hollow and poor an economics education has become. Marx was a genius and his work was probably mostly valid but he is forever stained with his FLAWED work which was embraced and extended into big nightmares for the world. Most our economics has been build upon ignorant beliefs about human nature, not just Marx. Today we have a lot of science on humans so informed changes to economics can happen.... but does it? most the field is to pay lip service to the status quo-- which explains why they get bye without Marx; it's not a real education... (more like a theology degree. Yeah, I think nothing of how many angles fit on the head of a pin.) So even if Marx supported all the bad things that were build upon a portion of his work-- his work still is good and as a whole his impact is far too great to ignore. If something is wrong or a dangerous position you do not censor it or slander it, you LEARN and dismantle it logically -- see the flaw and learn to not repeat the mistakes.
No, I'm not a fan, I don't know much myself; but I oppose intellectual bankruptcy and it's spread.
We do similar things with the Nazi, etc. Their positions need to be learned and destroyed in a civil way so people actually understand why it is flawed and so dangerous. But we think it's so dangerous we only slander and shun it while those who lurk in the shadows spread the ideas we do not bring to light. Finding speeches of Hitler was impossible when I was young, they were censored except by the shunned supporters. The little I remember, I can see that the real reason probably wasn't fear of their persuasion but because of how it often reminds you of politicians today...
Learn some actual psychology then maybe you won't rush to judgement over others failure to live up to your ignorant expectations. Yes, if you learn some science you may have to question your beliefs... You may have a difficult time breaking from a long time or life-long attachment to a way of life just like this woman has and it takes strength to recognize and fight a problem that can easily go unnoticed and then be easily dismissed as a defensive reaction.
We are APES! There is no magical act which makes us separate from all of creation.
Sorry mindless religious followers, you have much to learn which does not mean giving up all your faith although it may feel like that which is why you choose remain in the dark. You can take heart, because even non-believers have bought into many of your beliefs without realizing it. This idea that Humans are separate from nature and we are not 99.9% the same as an APE being one of your basic beliefs.
Humans use their brainpower to RATIONALIZE their stupid APE behaviors almost all the time. Get into cognitive psychology and it will dispel the myth. We evolved problem solving survival skills not logic; all the great stuff we did was a lucky re-purposing of our brain power. We'd be far better at math, logic, emotions if we had evolved for thinking and not just survival. It is quite likely we did it to compete for scarce resources as we over populated because we were at the top of the food chain before we had large brains (latest science.) This would account for our war like tribal tendencies; as well as the fact any pack animals which can out distance every creature on earth and throw things can take down any animal thru attrition. It explains our inability to scale properly... We are wrecking the environment just like mindless animals who lack predators...we don't control our birthing rates either... yeah, we are so above other animals... just because we can think during our idle time between consuming and mating? Unlike other animals we are never satisfied, we use our survival brain power to increase lazy time... to the point of hurting our own health... just like Apes hurt their own survival by being content to sit in trees most the day instead of thinking up ways to do even less. (now make them envious of other apes...which even tiny monkeys have been proven to experience and you might get smarter groups dominating...)
This in no way an argument in support of employing social Darwinism today. (I don't have time to take on a popular American belief too.)
Some people are genetically weaker at fighting off certain kinds of temptation but management is still a learned skill that some people were not raised with which puts them at a severe disadvantage (like an Ape) when trying to learn it as an adult. (brain power does impact how well you can over-ride it... but it's not as strong as most think.) The culture is designed to exploit and promote poor skills in these areas and the technology does a great job compounding the issue. Even if you are skilled at controlling your impulses let me feed you some seriously dangerous drugs and see just how strong you can cope with your biology triggering impulses just as strong than psychologically driven ones.
The USA is pushing NK to accelerate what they view as their strongest defensive position. There is no point to having a deterrent weapon if nobody knows that it actually works. They have to demonstrate and surprise everybody doubting their abilities. If we overestimated them they'd not be working so hard to show their capacity exceeds our low expectations. Once they get good enough bombs.... guess they didn't learn from the atom bomb because they are still threatened so they need more capacity... perhaps when they achieve it they will feel safe?? (no, but that is the rational... not anymore crazy than most everybody else.)
Their plans fit right into the same reasoning all the other nuclear weapon enabled nations have had. Everybody wants them and the motives are basically the same as everybody else. Even if you remove the economic war against them they will continue for the same reasons all the other nations did. They can't economically retaliate leaving capitulation, isolation, threat of war or war as their only options.
As far as WW3. That was the cold war (a different kind of war where neither side dared to fight conventionally, for obvious reasons. It was world wide and killed more than WW1 so.....) Would this become WW4? probably not. It'll probably be short and quick with both leaders going down in history even worse than they already are.
1) Jobs are dead. "it's jobs stupid" might have been everything in the past but now jobs are becoming stupid. There will not be enough jobs and we already have a massive shortage of meaningful or low skill livable wage jobs (remember how many middle class jobs we used to have for high school drop outs?) Automation will drive this point further as it advances and capital uncontrollably pushes it forward.
2) Corporations are not job creators. Demand creates markets, it fuels black markets despite huge obstacles. Being hard on corporations does not put them out of business if there is demand... their product does not have to be addicting... the real threat is:
3) Free trade is an economic war crime. Tariffs. A flat world only works with 1 world government... otherwise it's exploitation at scales beyond comprehension. Few people are foolish enough to want a 1 world government capable of solving exploitation. Fascism thrives in such environments... You can't beat the efficiency of Fascism + inhumane behavior.
4) TAX corporations MORE! That is actually forward thinking!! REASON: We tax production in many ways, where shifting the burden to workers is a never ending debate. As the number of workers shrinks it makes more sense to shift the burden to corporations and idiotic to shift it towards a shrinking revenue source (but the rich have undue influence.) Taxes (the fuel of civilization) needs to come from the economic system we have; how much is just splitting hairs while missing the bigger picture:
5) The few workers there are get no taxes and everybody lives on a base income just for being alive. Everybody benefits from productivity; those who do work to increase it get extra benefits-- there will always be such people. In fact, the creative, innovative types who are responsible for most our progress were not motivated by money! (decades of science says so.) I'm not forgetting those who are great at maximizing production who ARE motivated by money, there will be no shortage of them and their addiction to acquiring wealth/power which will never be satisfied, so we:
6) Cap individual incomes, logarithmically. Governments last longer when they separate powers and if you do not address individual power (and the hybrid of person + gov law=corp ) then non-government entities will overpower and corrupt government. Functionally, this has already happened in the USA to the point it is no longer a working democracy.
South Korea is working on certain kinds of automation and others are working on different kinds of automation. Picking to discourage narrowly what they view as a problem will only delay their progress while other nations continue - resulting in eventual failure when the tax plan is overcome by mature japanese robots who evolved elsewhere to the point they undercut the financial and/or regulatory barriers.
Kids grew up seeing adult sex for most of human existence. From adult animals out in nature to actual humans and they likely knew those humans, quite possibly their parents.
Humanity wasn't messed up until modern times somehow saved the children... actually, we treat and value children less in modern "civilized" times.
Not that improper exposure can't cause mental harm but improper exposure to a great many topics can damage a child. Such as killing animals in the wrong way/setting... or not being exposed to it.... Me, I would go vegan if I had to prepare and collect all the animal products I consume... Now if I was forced over the initial dislike of the process I'd adapt and be fine with it, but since I never will have to do it... Being sheltered from sex completely makes it seem unnatural and promotes the number of possible negative interpretations; lacking a "this is not a big deal" context that a routine natural exposure provides.
I have no trouble pressing shift. What I have trouble doing along with all other humans is having a perfect memory for tons of strong passwords. (I use a keychain so I rarely deal with passwords other than a few.)
My exploration of user patterns from years of looking at people I was admin for, is that capitalization is how they mostly handle the caps requirement or they go full capslock. Programmers love camel case.
In terms of brute force space, it makes sense to force a larger character set while it also makes sense to require a good length too; we try to cut down on length because of human memory. It is easier to remember case than a few more symbols. Thing is what I've observed is likely representative of what a real study would show-- people are NOT even remotely random and fail to use the symbol space and prefer to go as short as possible. A smarter more statistical attack will do far better than brute force, adding caps or symbols won't grow the space by much in practice - but adding to the length a few characters probably doesn't practically help much more when they are NOT random. More dictionary word combinations are possible with 10 characters -- the increase in space actually allows for more common patterns. Such as using two 5 letter words from the dictionary or a 10 letter word - it gives the attacker more (not as much as it increases the combinations obviously.)
I've seen 123456789 passwords too. my checker I wrote detected keyboard sequences as well as appending ! or 1... doubling a bad password twice is another one. The clever ones going unnoticed were quite stupid: password@domain.com by being cleverly unique but extremely predictable. Humans are strong at hacking around the rules to save energy. We probably only evolved to save on labor.
Like I said, simply requiring the use of a SPACE character should do more than the few symbols people use when forced to do so. It would encourage the adding of words maybe phrases which would do more than adding 2 characters to the length. Then at least we have english's 60,000 vocab of which normal people maybe only know about 20,000 words but only using 2-4 words turns the problem into a 20,000 symbol set of 3 characters. As you said, the exponent matters more than the base... So then if any trend happens where we need to protect against phrases we then need password checkers to detect phrase passwords and require more than just 3 words. Emjoii use for cell users would probably end up with poop replacing or being next to ! Requiring a new password periodically results in a numbering scheme.
So, the best policy would be require great length; allow all of unicode and phrase detection for imposing more rules on minimum wordcount and a pop culture phrase book.
Me, I run new passwords against the dictionary of top 100 bad passwords after regex stripping away common hacks along with banning @ and all user account info and company info and many date formats. Sometimes I throw it at my hashed 1900 Webster dictionary then I don't allow any phrase list of dictionary words. It can frustrate new users something awful since it is hard to specify all the rules and they just want a few simple rules to hack around to get their horrible password accepted.
Even slave labor gets replaced with a cotton gin. We can't free the slaves; it'll force us into automation and cost jobs! We also can't support the unemployed by taxing the owners of automation! The lazy unemployed need to pick themselves up by their own boot straps like... Trump.
Requiring UPPERCASE doubles the space while 0-9 only adds 10 digits. It would be better to require mixed CASE than to require digits.
Also, requiring a symbol then allowing ANY symbol would expand the space to typical symbols people use... probably only about 8 symbols cover 90% of passwords. A full brute force would expand to nearly all of unicode! Emjoii included.
Requiring a SPACE might only add 1 digit but it would hint to people to add a whole WORD and I bet you get more in practice than requiring digits.
Strength tests should include the domain name because I've seen some lists where the domain name was used. My own investigating found people will use dates, names, initials, their PIN #, phone, even part of their email address. That kind of easily guessed stuff does not show up in these checkers OR in the stats gathered from break ins. Sites really should not create an account password UNTIL you enter all your account information. The session ID is good enough for tracking logins it surely is good enough to setup an account before creating a password and account name. Everybody does it backwards.
1) Jobs are dead. "it's jobs stupid" might have been everything in the past but now jobs are becoming stupid. There will not be enough jobs and we already have a massive shortage of meaningful or purposeful jobs (in the USA, but more so globally.) Automation will illustrate this as it advances and capital uncontrollably pushes it forward.
2) Corporations are not job creators. Demand creates markets, it fuels black markets despite huge obstacles. Being hard on corporations does not put them out of business if there is demand... their product does not have to be addicting... the real threat is:
3) Free trade is an economic war crime. Tariffs. A flat world only works with 1 world government... otherwise it's exploitation at scales beyond comprehension. Fascism thrives in such an environment... You can't beat the efficiency of Fascism + inhumane behavior.
4) TAX corporations MORE! That is actually forward thinking!! REASON: We tax production in many ways, where shifting the burden to workers is a never ending debate. As the number of workers shrinks it makes more sense to shift the burden to corporations and idiotic to shift it towards a shrinking revenue source. Taxes (the fuel of civilization) needs to come from the economic system we have; how much is just splitting hairs while missing the bigger picture.
5) The few workers there are get no taxes and everybody lives on a base income just for being alive. Everybody benefits from productivity; those who do work to increase it get extra benefits-- there will always be such people. In fact, the creative, innovative types who are responsible for most our progress were not motivated by money. Not forgetting those who are great at maximizing production who are usually motivated by money, there will be no shortage of them.
6) Cap individual incomes. Governments last longer when they separate powers and if you do not address individual power (and the hybrid of person+gov=corp ) then non-government entities will overpower and corrupt government. Functionally, this has already happened in the USA to the point it is no longer a working democracy.
They can easily fool 33% of the nation with flat out lying why do they need to fake anything. Trump Jr can admit a meeting happened, release evidence and still have 1/3 believe it never happened! Trump really could shoot somebody out in the street on TV and not do any worse in the polls.
Americans are the biggest wimps and whine about everything too! I've lived here all my life and I've seen it 1st hand. People are more isolated from each other and feel like it's their right to not have to deal with ACTUAL diversity. It has been getting worse with time.
Conservatives for the most part are more out of touch with reality than ever before and that is not to say the newer generations of literals are immune from the trend, they are not.
Technology has been helping; but mostly helping strengthen bubbles and intolerance while boosting emotional resistance to thinking. Maybe it can be used in a good way but it seems that all our current technology has a net negative influence on society. Naturally, we will solve these tech created problems with more tech... like always. Someday we might even break even (but we'll be starting far behind where we've fallen already.)
Conservatives will have trouble with any university because by nature they cling to the past and universities exist to create our futures. Old people become conservative because they dislike the changes as life passes them bye; it's a myth that they became wiser simply due to age. That general mindset doesn't belong in university.
Google Canada is at the mercy of Canada. Google USA can ignore Canada.
They LEGALLY incorporate in countries they do business in. They can leave Canada but still be accessible and ignore laws but they will have trouble doing business in the country.
I guess I should incorporate a criminal enterprise in another country and then claim the government can't touch me because I'm not breaking any laws because I'm doing so in another nation... So I'll sell drugs in your country with my corporation if you sell them with your corporation in mine?
The USA will probably be one of the last to catch up. They already are unable to solve simple problems so it's naive to think they'd lead the world in anything other than another example of how to fall into despotism quickly despite being (formerly) at the top of the world.
One transition to the future would be to remove income taxes and replace them with corporate taxes and capital gains taxes and use this to fund UBI. Forget about a serious discussion in the USA on such things even if you describe it in terms of Star Trek.
Automation will replace most jobs as it has already done for many jobs... since WW2 the USA pioneered the consumer economy but that is no longer sustainable for them and never was for most the planet (not that they cared... they still don't really. )
There are nowhere near enough meaningful jobs and it will continue to decline. Only when the problem is unavoidable will the USA start to admit there is a problem. Look at global warming for example. Or look at how bridges collapsing still has most people upset at the suggestion of raising the gas tax (which funds bridge upkeep and has been cut because it's impossible to peg funding to inflation when you don't understand math or money.)
A corporation in their country does not have human rights. They can stop a corporation in their country from doing things anywhere they operate. it's simple. If the corporation wants to operate and benefit from the powers governments bestow upon them they must abide by whatever the government says. Google can leave Canada or whatever nation or operate without incorporating a local branch in that nation (however that is possible.) Seems to me one of the many loophole tricks with subsidiaries would be a way to get around such things.
DO NOT CONFLATE HUMAN RIGHTS WITH CORPORATIONS! They do not have free speech rights.
As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.
Netflix already does a whole series at once. This will be the same but instead of a linear timeline of multiple episodes you have many branches of the same plot line.
They win the business lottery and we act like they have psychic powers.
Go with PROVEN sources who use in-depth reasoning like Limits to growth which gives more insight into actual problems coming and has been amazingly correct... as well as open about the methods which can be updated and refined.
History shows us that we do not have enough jobs for people; meaningful work has long gone-- we socially engineered a consumer econ so we can have meaningless jobs solely for propping up the economy post WW2. That hasn't lasted long because the consuming population has already gone beyond the physical limits of Earth - so we can not extend that population to the 2/7 people in deep poverty today without multiple planets. When robot tech greatly accelerates the lost jobs we should notice...
Employer based healthcare requires full-time employment and until Obamacare helped you were tied ("motivated") into working full time at an employer. Especially a problem for older / less healthy looking job seekers (HR will not tell you that is why you were rejected... but it is.) Kids aren't the problem, it's the family health benefits.
So, we work part time as the new "full time" but somehow we get health insurance? Do we get paid as much for less work time?? Remember the 50-60s and how they predicted we would work LESS hours? we work more; furthermore, we have email etc invading our time off... robbing us of more of our lives. Americans don't seem to know how to live anymore-- work, consume, zone-out on TV. Little legit social activities and zero community... do you know your neighbor's names? (only next door is pathetic.) Only church goers have a little bit 1 day per week and not a great deal goes on most of those places either. It all helps feed into consumer addiction filling the voids created.
I can predict a huge amount of turmoil -- and I will be right because what we've seen already will continue into more chaos and insecurity. We can't go into Star Trek life styles without a lot of bad times first. People have trouble adjusting to major cultural and social changes -- the powerful have too much power at this turning point and they ALWAYS resist everything that can undermine their security! You think the wealthy elite will allow more equity as most tech progresses IN THEIR favor?
Slashdot Mirror
Most people do not mean literally 100% exact extremes. 1 Atom literally makes an absolute statement false but practically speaking when we say NONE we normal people have THRESHOLDS and so does science and math when we round off and have acceptable margins of error. We don't have to specify such things except in an academic paper. It doesn't mean that the person has no clue; furthermore, even if they have no clue the statement can still be true. I wonder how somebody like you can function in society without being able to selectively disabling anal mode, you literal minded time waster.
Lack of security education and the use cases involved is why we continue to have this disaster:
Account Universally Unique Identifiers are needed and just like your email should be public knowledge and able to be changed (but not without some difficulty.) It is illegal to track people using SSN or verify their identity with SSN but that has been going on since the start because people didn't LEARN enough to separate the use cases. Keep some uses illegal, but address the use cases and allow it as a universal unique identifier everywhere (with legal limits-- you can't force everybody post comments online using their UUID as their account name.)
SSN is just fine to CONTINUE to use as a citizen number. Let them be published. Children born after X date get a smarter UUID. Something easy to remember, base33 with only 6 characters... 3 for time/place of birth and 3 as a serial number. [A-Z0-9] but remove [OZI] to avoid confusion with [051].
Identity will require 3rd party verification-- by government and allow for other parties to sign on as well.
Use Cases:
Age verification, Endorsements, Tax Id, ownerships, claims, signing, HIDDEN anonymous virtual identities.
Multiple IDs are possible and SHOULD exist. Drinking Age is fine with a photo ID validated by 2D barcode of a digital photo. No identity required-- anonymous age verification!
Online age verification, smart chip... difficult to copy -- again, no identity given whatsoever. A pin could be used SOMETIMES... skydiving vs porn depends on how strong a verification step is needed if you need a pin.
Hidden anonymous identity--- as many as you want but the government with a warrant can discover your true identity. You could blockchain all of your aliases. Corporations, Contracts-- all will NOT know your identity or track you precisely with this info-- but lawsuits and crimes would allow in certain cases your alias chain to be tracked down in court (but not disclosed to corps.) Rent a car, steal it-- get sued and the rental service wins but never knows who you are the whole time; but the cops who arrest you know. Credit cards etc could be done using something like this... bankruptcy or identity protection situations could "reset" you while still maintaining an official secret trail.
Biometrics:
Tattoo your SSN on your fingers and use that as your password. Biometrics also fail at 5th amendment protections.
iPhone X: don't put your password on your forehead, make forehead your password!
Stop turning off your brain whenever conspiracy comes up!
If you have any significant social experience and reasonable intelligence you've noticed conspiracies or participated in them!
A little bit of watching reality tv shows: groups of people plotting against each other for some advantage. That IS conspiracy; I've seen so little TV I suspect it must be a big feature of TV given my small sample size. No tinfoil hats are required. Hey, lets tell our parents we are doing X when we are actually doing Y! = conspiracy.
MOST of what the FBI does is criminal conspiracy investigation! (my source? my FBI recruiter.) Great journalists are made (and get awards for) investigating and exposing conspiracies. Just look at any list of journalism award winners-- I bet you most are conspiracy investigations.
Yes there are stupid conspiracies and reasoning from unknowns yields poor success rates. Profile a criminal type and you operate the unknown using stereotyped behavior patterns... individuals or groups (conspiracies require >=2)
I was not specific - I said under most situations. I was NOT specifically referring to water. Actually, I was thinking paint and then gasoline both which took way too long to catch up with expert opinion (which should be enough when health and safety are involved... except profit $$$ so then it has to be 100% scientific consensus...)
As far as water, a quick google will show recently REVISED lower levels of Pb not that long ago...(CDC) which supports MY point - the thresholds keep changing and usually they go down. Furthermore, a single government's policy is not the best source for a factual basis on a question of science/reality.
Infrastructure costs influence policy making. duh...
The BEST threshold (zero risk ideal) vs the HEALTHY threshold (negligible risk) vs SAFE threshold (politically acceptable risk... unlike the other two it is a subjective value.) Thresholds are involved at multiple levels and influenced by many factors at each level from policy to science to data collection.
Given the history of big corporations influencing dosage levels, we do not have to be a conspiracy nutcase (or somewhat fake nutcase) like Alex Jones to realistically assume powerful forces are going to be trying their best to corrupt the whole subject.
Then we have the history of science moving slowly due to funding etc, as well as being wrong for a while on top of the propaganda and corruption making it move slower. Remember when Pb was not a problem? Then we had various levels of acceptable Pb under different situations and finally after a REALLY LONG TIME the conclusion that there really is NO safe acceptable level Pb under most situations.
The stuff hasn't been around long enough to see long term problems and even so, if the problems can be kept close to the margins of error and if symptoms between people differ even slightly you divide the population so that the largest groups fall too close to error margins. I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to add something to make it WORSE to diversify symptoms... someday they WILL do something like this. because profits... duh.
Even old accepted standard tests such as the amount of Vitamin C we should have just have not been revised with better studies involving more than 1 man getting scurvy... plus there is the whole matter of what is a healthy amount vs what threshold is so bad symptoms develop. In this case, it could be the healthy amount is 3x as high as the minimum mean average.... why use a mean average?
I live in mosquito mecca. Birds do nothing for me. Imported Chinese dragonflies have made the biggest human impact against them. However, bats help greatly - we've noticed an unbelievable improvement since putting in bat houses in our yards. (The state can't put them every other house but the dragonflies helped the whole area greatly.)
Many birds have gone extinct because of us and we didn't know or if we did we didn't do anything; besides, we have lots of tiny birds and losing multiple species of tiny birds because of our house cats. We don't have tons of bats and they have a different job-- a better job: eating annoying bugs.
So many PhDs in economics didn't learn Marx. That man had an impact and did such brilliant work that it illustrates how hollow and poor an economics education has become. Marx was a genius and his work was probably mostly valid but he is forever stained with his FLAWED work which was embraced and extended into big nightmares for the world. Most our economics has been build upon ignorant beliefs about human nature, not just Marx. Today we have a lot of science on humans so informed changes to economics can happen.... but does it? most the field is to pay lip service to the status quo-- which explains why they get bye without Marx; it's not a real education... (more like a theology degree. Yeah, I think nothing of how many angles fit on the head of a pin.) So even if Marx supported all the bad things that were build upon a portion of his work-- his work still is good and as a whole his impact is far too great to ignore. If something is wrong or a dangerous position you do not censor it or slander it, you LEARN and dismantle it logically -- see the flaw and learn to not repeat the mistakes.
No, I'm not a fan, I don't know much myself; but I oppose intellectual bankruptcy and it's spread.
We do similar things with the Nazi, etc. Their positions need to be learned and destroyed in a civil way so people actually understand why it is flawed and so dangerous. But we think it's so dangerous we only slander and shun it while those who lurk in the shadows spread the ideas we do not bring to light. Finding speeches of Hitler was impossible when I was young, they were censored except by the shunned supporters. The little I remember, I can see that the real reason probably wasn't fear of their persuasion but because of how it often reminds you of politicians today...
Learn some actual psychology then maybe you won't rush to judgement over others failure to live up to your ignorant expectations. Yes, if you learn some science you may have to question your beliefs... You may have a difficult time breaking from a long time or life-long attachment to a way of life just like this woman has and it takes strength to recognize and fight a problem that can easily go unnoticed and then be easily dismissed as a defensive reaction.
We are APES! There is no magical act which makes us separate from all of creation.
Sorry mindless religious followers, you have much to learn which does not mean giving up all your faith although it may feel like that which is why you choose remain in the dark. You can take heart, because even non-believers have bought into many of your beliefs without realizing it. This idea that Humans are separate from nature and we are not 99.9% the same as an APE being one of your basic beliefs.
Humans use their brainpower to RATIONALIZE their stupid APE behaviors almost all the time. Get into cognitive psychology and it will dispel the myth. We evolved problem solving survival skills not logic; all the great stuff we did was a lucky re-purposing of our brain power. We'd be far better at math, logic, emotions if we had evolved for thinking and not just survival. It is quite likely we did it to compete for scarce resources as we over populated because we were at the top of the food chain before we had large brains (latest science.) This would account for our war like tribal tendencies; as well as the fact any pack animals which can out distance every creature on earth and throw things can take down any animal thru attrition. It explains our inability to scale properly... We are wrecking the environment just like mindless animals who lack predators...we don't control our birthing rates either... yeah, we are so above other animals... just because we can think during our idle time between consuming and mating? Unlike other animals we are never satisfied, we use our survival brain power to increase lazy time... to the point of hurting our own health... just like Apes hurt their own survival by being content to sit in trees most the day instead of thinking up ways to do even less. (now make them envious of other apes...which even tiny monkeys have been proven to experience and you might get smarter groups dominating...)
This in no way an argument in support of employing social Darwinism today. (I don't have time to take on a popular American belief too.)
Some people are genetically weaker at fighting off certain kinds of temptation but management is still a learned skill that some people were not raised with which puts them at a severe disadvantage (like an Ape) when trying to learn it as an adult. (brain power does impact how well you can over-ride it... but it's not as strong as most think.) The culture is designed to exploit and promote poor skills in these areas and the technology does a great job compounding the issue. Even if you are skilled at controlling your impulses let me feed you some seriously dangerous drugs and see just how strong you can cope with your biology triggering impulses just as strong than psychologically driven ones.
The USA is pushing NK to accelerate what they view as their strongest defensive position. There is no point to having a deterrent weapon if nobody knows that it actually works. They have to demonstrate and surprise everybody doubting their abilities. If we overestimated them they'd not be working so hard to show their capacity exceeds our low expectations. Once they get good enough bombs.... guess they didn't learn from the atom bomb because they are still threatened so they need more capacity... perhaps when they achieve it they will feel safe?? (no, but that is the rational... not anymore crazy than most everybody else.)
Their plans fit right into the same reasoning all the other nuclear weapon enabled nations have had. Everybody wants them and the motives are basically the same as everybody else. Even if you remove the economic war against them they will continue for the same reasons all the other nations did. They can't economically retaliate leaving capitulation, isolation, threat of war or war as their only options.
As far as WW3. That was the cold war (a different kind of war where neither side dared to fight conventionally, for obvious reasons. It was world wide and killed more than WW1 so.....) Would this become WW4? probably not. It'll probably be short and quick with both leaders going down in history even worse than they already are.
1) Jobs are dead. "it's jobs stupid" might have been everything in the past but now jobs are becoming stupid. There will not be enough jobs and we already have a massive shortage of meaningful or low skill livable wage jobs (remember how many middle class jobs we used to have for high school drop outs?) Automation will drive this point further as it advances and capital uncontrollably pushes it forward.
2) Corporations are not job creators. Demand creates markets, it fuels black markets despite huge obstacles. Being hard on corporations does not put them out of business if there is demand... their product does not have to be addicting... the real threat is:
3) Free trade is an economic war crime. Tariffs. A flat world only works with 1 world government... otherwise it's exploitation at scales beyond comprehension. Few people are foolish enough to want a 1 world government capable of solving exploitation. Fascism thrives in such environments... You can't beat the efficiency of Fascism + inhumane behavior.
4) TAX corporations MORE! That is actually forward thinking!!
REASON: We tax production in many ways, where shifting the burden to workers is a never ending debate. As the number of workers shrinks it makes more sense to shift the burden to corporations and idiotic to shift it towards a shrinking revenue source (but the rich have undue influence.) Taxes (the fuel of civilization) needs to come from the economic system we have; how much is just splitting hairs while missing the bigger picture:
5) The few workers there are get no taxes and everybody lives on a base income just for being alive. Everybody benefits from productivity; those who do work to increase it get extra benefits-- there will always be such people. In fact, the creative, innovative types who are responsible for most our progress were not motivated by money! (decades of science says so.) I'm not forgetting those who are great at maximizing production who ARE motivated by money, there will be no shortage of them and their addiction to acquiring wealth/power which will never be satisfied, so we:
6) Cap individual incomes, logarithmically. Governments last longer when they separate powers and if you do not address individual power (and the hybrid of person + gov law=corp ) then non-government entities will overpower and corrupt government. Functionally, this has already happened in the USA to the point it is no longer a working democracy.
South Korea is working on certain kinds of automation and others are working on different kinds of automation. Picking to discourage narrowly what they view as a problem will only delay their progress while other nations continue - resulting in eventual failure when the tax plan is overcome by mature japanese robots who evolved elsewhere to the point they undercut the financial and/or regulatory barriers.
Kids grew up seeing adult sex for most of human existence. From adult animals out in nature to actual humans and they likely knew those humans, quite possibly their parents.
Humanity wasn't messed up until modern times somehow saved the children... actually, we treat and value children less in modern "civilized" times.
Not that improper exposure can't cause mental harm but improper exposure to a great many topics can damage a child. Such as killing animals in the wrong way/setting... or not being exposed to it.... Me, I would go vegan if I had to prepare and collect all the animal products I consume... Now if I was forced over the initial dislike of the process I'd adapt and be fine with it, but since I never will have to do it... Being sheltered from sex completely makes it seem unnatural and promotes the number of possible negative interpretations; lacking a "this is not a big deal" context that a routine natural exposure provides.
I have no trouble pressing shift. What I have trouble doing along with all other humans is having a perfect memory for tons of strong passwords. (I use a keychain so I rarely deal with passwords other than a few.)
My exploration of user patterns from years of looking at people I was admin for, is that capitalization is how they mostly handle the caps requirement or they go full capslock. Programmers love camel case.
In terms of brute force space, it makes sense to force a larger character set while it also makes sense to require a good length too; we try to cut down on length because of human memory. It is easier to remember case than a few more symbols. Thing is what I've observed is likely representative of what a real study would show-- people are NOT even remotely random and fail to use the symbol space and prefer to go as short as possible. A smarter more statistical attack will do far better than brute force, adding caps or symbols won't grow the space by much in practice - but adding to the length a few characters probably doesn't practically help much more when they are NOT random. More dictionary word combinations are possible with 10 characters -- the increase in space actually allows for more common patterns. Such as using two 5 letter words from the dictionary or a 10 letter word - it gives the attacker more (not as much as it increases the combinations obviously.)
I've seen 123456789 passwords too. my checker I wrote detected keyboard sequences as well as appending ! or 1... doubling a bad password twice is another one. The clever ones going unnoticed were quite stupid: password@domain.com by being cleverly unique but extremely predictable. Humans are strong at hacking around the rules to save energy. We probably only evolved to save on labor.
Like I said, simply requiring the use of a SPACE character should do more than the few symbols people use when forced to do so. It would encourage the adding of words maybe phrases which would do more than adding 2 characters to the length. Then at least we have english's 60,000 vocab of which normal people maybe only know about 20,000 words but only using 2-4 words turns the problem into a 20,000 symbol set of 3 characters. As you said, the exponent matters more than the base... So then if any trend happens where we need to protect against phrases we then need password checkers to detect phrase passwords and require more than just 3 words. Emjoii use for cell users would probably end up with poop replacing or being next to ! Requiring a new password periodically results in a numbering scheme.
So, the best policy would be require great length; allow all of unicode and phrase detection for imposing more rules on minimum wordcount and a pop culture phrase book.
Me, I run new passwords against the dictionary of top 100 bad passwords after regex stripping away common hacks along with banning @ and all user account info and company info and many date formats. Sometimes I throw it at my hashed 1900 Webster dictionary then I don't allow any phrase list of dictionary words. It can frustrate new users something awful since it is hard to specify all the rules and they just want a few simple rules to hack around to get their horrible password accepted.
Tip jobs are still stuck at about $3 per hour.
Even slave labor gets replaced with a cotton gin. We can't free the slaves; it'll force us into automation and cost jobs! We also can't support the unemployed by taxing the owners of automation! The lazy unemployed need to pick themselves up by their own boot straps like... Trump.
Requiring UPPERCASE doubles the space while 0-9 only adds 10 digits. It would be better to require mixed CASE than to require digits.
Also, requiring a symbol then allowing ANY symbol would expand the space to typical symbols people use... probably only about 8 symbols cover 90% of passwords. A full brute force would expand to nearly all of unicode! Emjoii included.
Requiring a SPACE might only add 1 digit but it would hint to people to add a whole WORD and I bet you get more in practice than requiring digits.
Strength tests should include the domain name because I've seen some lists where the domain name was used. My own investigating found people will use dates, names, initials, their PIN #, phone, even part of their email address. That kind of easily guessed stuff does not show up in these checkers OR in the stats gathered from break ins. Sites really should not create an account password UNTIL you enter all your account information. The session ID is good enough for tracking logins it surely is good enough to setup an account before creating a password and account name. Everybody does it backwards.
1) Jobs are dead. "it's jobs stupid" might have been everything in the past but now jobs are becoming stupid. There will not be enough jobs and we already have a massive shortage of meaningful or purposeful jobs (in the USA, but more so globally.) Automation will illustrate this as it advances and capital uncontrollably pushes it forward.
2) Corporations are not job creators. Demand creates markets, it fuels black markets despite huge obstacles. Being hard on corporations does not put them out of business if there is demand... their product does not have to be addicting... the real threat is:
3) Free trade is an economic war crime. Tariffs. A flat world only works with 1 world government... otherwise it's exploitation at scales beyond comprehension. Fascism thrives in such an environment... You can't beat the efficiency of Fascism + inhumane behavior.
4) TAX corporations MORE! That is actually forward thinking!!
REASON: We tax production in many ways, where shifting the burden to workers is a never ending debate. As the number of workers shrinks it makes more sense to shift the burden to corporations and idiotic to shift it towards a shrinking revenue source. Taxes (the fuel of civilization) needs to come from the economic system we have; how much is just splitting hairs while missing the bigger picture.
5) The few workers there are get no taxes and everybody lives on a base income just for being alive. Everybody benefits from productivity; those who do work to increase it get extra benefits-- there will always be such people. In fact, the creative, innovative types who are responsible for most our progress were not motivated by money. Not forgetting those who are great at maximizing production who are usually motivated by money, there will be no shortage of them.
6) Cap individual incomes. Governments last longer when they separate powers and if you do not address individual power (and the hybrid of person+gov=corp ) then non-government entities will overpower and corrupt government. Functionally, this has already happened in the USA to the point it is no longer a working democracy.
my 1st thought years ago was pranking cars by jumping out in front of them. Crazy to risk it; however, when it becomes predictably safe...
Next thought was some radio nerds experimenting with broadcasting signals towards cars.
They can easily fool 33% of the nation with flat out lying why do they need to fake anything. Trump Jr can admit a meeting happened, release evidence and still have 1/3 believe it never happened! Trump really could shoot somebody out in the street on TV and not do any worse in the polls.
Americans are the biggest wimps and whine about everything too! I've lived here all my life and I've seen it 1st hand. People are more isolated from each other and feel like it's their right to not have to deal with ACTUAL diversity. It has been getting worse with time.
Conservatives for the most part are more out of touch with reality than ever before and that is not to say the newer generations of literals are immune from the trend, they are not.
Technology has been helping; but mostly helping strengthen bubbles and intolerance while boosting emotional resistance to thinking. Maybe it can be used in a good way but it seems that all our current technology has a net negative influence on society. Naturally, we will solve these tech created problems with more tech... like always. Someday we might even break even (but we'll be starting far behind where we've fallen already.)
Conservatives will have trouble with any university because by nature they cling to the past and universities exist to create our futures. Old people become conservative because they dislike the changes as life passes them bye; it's a myth that they became wiser simply due to age. That general mindset doesn't belong in university.
Google Canada is at the mercy of Canada. Google USA can ignore Canada.
They LEGALLY incorporate in countries they do business in. They can leave Canada but still be accessible and ignore laws but they will have trouble doing business in the country.
I guess I should incorporate a criminal enterprise in another country and then claim the government can't touch me because I'm not breaking any laws because I'm doing so in another nation... So I'll sell drugs in your country with my corporation if you sell them with your corporation in mine?
The USA will probably be one of the last to catch up. They already are unable to solve simple problems so it's naive to think they'd lead the world in anything other than another example of how to fall into despotism quickly despite being (formerly) at the top of the world.
One transition to the future would be to remove income taxes and replace them with corporate taxes and capital gains taxes and use this to fund UBI. Forget about a serious discussion in the USA on such things even if you describe it in terms of Star Trek.
Automation will replace most jobs as it has already done for many jobs... since WW2 the USA pioneered the consumer economy but that is no longer sustainable for them and never was for most the planet (not that they cared... they still don't really. )
There are nowhere near enough meaningful jobs and it will continue to decline. Only when the problem is unavoidable will the USA start to admit there is a problem. Look at global warming for example. Or look at how bridges collapsing still has most people upset at the suggestion of raising the gas tax (which funds bridge upkeep and has been cut because it's impossible to peg funding to inflation when you don't understand math or money.)
A corporation in their country does not have human rights. They can stop a corporation in their country from doing things anywhere they operate. it's simple. If the corporation wants to operate and benefit from the powers governments bestow upon them they must abide by whatever the government says. Google can leave Canada or whatever nation or operate without incorporating a local branch in that nation (however that is possible.) Seems to me one of the many loophole tricks with subsidiaries would be a way to get around such things.
DO NOT CONFLATE HUMAN RIGHTS WITH CORPORATIONS! They do not have free speech rights.
As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House
will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.
~H.L. Mencken
Netflix already does a whole series at once. This will be the same but instead of a linear timeline of multiple episodes you have many branches of the same plot line.
They win the business lottery and we act like they have psychic powers.
Go with PROVEN sources who use in-depth reasoning like Limits to growth which gives more insight into actual problems coming and has been amazingly correct... as well as open about the methods which can be updated and refined.
History shows us that we do not have enough jobs for people; meaningful work has long gone-- we socially engineered a consumer econ so we can have meaningless jobs solely for propping up the economy post WW2. That hasn't lasted long because the consuming population has already gone beyond the physical limits of Earth - so we can not extend that population to the 2/7 people in deep poverty today without multiple planets. When robot tech greatly accelerates the lost jobs we should notice...
Employer based healthcare requires full-time employment and until Obamacare helped you were tied ("motivated") into working full time at an employer. Especially a problem for older / less healthy looking job seekers (HR will not tell you that is why you were rejected... but it is.) Kids aren't the problem, it's the family health benefits.
So, we work part time as the new "full time" but somehow we get health insurance? Do we get paid as much for less work time?? Remember the 50-60s and how they predicted we would work LESS hours? we work more; furthermore, we have email etc invading our time off... robbing us of more of our lives. Americans don't seem to know how to live anymore-- work, consume, zone-out on TV. Little legit social activities and zero community... do you know your neighbor's names? (only next door is pathetic.) Only church goers have a little bit 1 day per week and not a great deal goes on most of those places either. It all helps feed into consumer addiction filling the voids created.
I can predict a huge amount of turmoil -- and I will be right because what we've seen already will continue into more chaos and insecurity. We can't go into Star Trek life styles without a lot of bad times first. People have trouble adjusting to major cultural and social changes -- the powerful have too much power at this turning point and they ALWAYS resist everything that can undermine their security! You think the wealthy elite will allow more equity as most tech progresses IN THEIR favor?