There are really only two ways, something you know (password) or something you have or both together. Anyone who has ever lost a set of keys know the something you have method will then lock you out. Security and ease of use have always been at loggerheads. Like a master key, a master password is a solution that is a good compromise of security and ease of use. Apple has such a system built into their OSX and I have a master password which unlocks all the other passwords.
....they require a password change every few months...
I have one single easy to remember alphanumeric password I have used for about 5 years now. I lets me log into my computer, which then unlocks the keychain which contains at least 15 passwords. Whenever I get asked to change some password, I change it in the keychain and on that server/system to some random string of ASCII codes which I never need to remember. For most systems, the keychain supplies the new password when prompted, but for some I have to look it up in the keychain and type or paste it into the login screen. Unless someone would know or guess my master password all password are safe.
I have over 15 passwords, but they are all encrypted under my laptop keychain which requires one encrypted password to unlock. For many servers and websites, the keychain automatically supplies the correct password, for some, I have to look them up in the unlocked keychain window and then type them in.
If someone wanted to install a keystroke logger on the laptop or if it got stolen, they'd have to know the admin password. If they would boot the computer from an outside disk or CD they could get into the computer and change the admin password, but they would not be able to unclock the keychain with it.
I think that Apple's arrangement for security and ease of use is better than many of the "secure" but inconvenient password management schemes commonly available. This way I only had to come up with one good, memorable, impossible or at least impractical to crack password.
...cleaned viri off of two family members' computers...
I do that once for them and after that I tell them that I use a Mac that doesn't get any of that malware and that I don't have and never have wasted a penny on anti-virus software. Several of them have since turned off their virus and spyware infested Windows machines for good and switched to Mac and are very happy.
There is no evidence that life in the now tropical areas was EVER dead. There is plenty of evidence that the ENTIRE planet was UNIFORMLY warm, from pole to pole and the tropics were no hotter than they are today. A warm water saturated atmosphere will distribute the solar energy the Earth receives very well. Especially the upper atmosphere, now very cold was warm then. Water is also a very good shield for high energy radiation from the sun and other extraterrestrial sources. That is one reason water is used in nuclear reactors as a moderator.
Pure water vapor is lighter than either oxygen or nitrogen. It tends to rise until it reaches the colder part of the atmosphere where it condenses around the dust particles and precipitates out again.
If the atmosphere, especially the upper part above 7 or so miles is warm, then the condensation will not take place. Also, barring a catastrophic event such as a large volcanic eruption or a large meteor strike, the upper part of the atmosphere is relatively free of particles around which droplets can form. It is this warm layer of almost pure water vapor that distributes warmth and keeps more of the sun's heat from escaping into space. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but pure water vapor even more so, because water, gaseous or liquid, holds a huge amount of latent heat. We know that large bodies of water moderate the climate around them. A large body of water, equivalent to about 200-300 feet of ocean volume in the upper atmosphere would have a world wide effect. There is evidence that the oceans were about that much lower in the past.
It appears NOT to work with Safari. I clicked on the links and nothing happened except the page disappeared and then came back. There never was a second window of any kind.
...You are confusing "scientists" with "religious nuts"....
Before a few hundred years ago the "religious nuts" as you call them, the scientists, or scientific philosophers as they were called then, were one and the same. Based on their observations the Earth appeared flat and therefore that is what was considered to be true by most of them.
Certain "religious nuts" who were in communication with the Creator God who IS, got it right, whereas the ones who depended on observations alone got it wrong for a long long time.
God tells us in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is not flat like the scientists of Isaiah's day thought, but is circular. Indeed the Hebrew word chwug (pronounced --> khoog) literally means spherical, like an orange or apple. It was 1700 years later that a Greek mathematician named Erathenes proved that the earth must be spherical.
None the myths about what supports the Earth that abounded in the ancient world are found in the Word of God. Man has always had very imaginative ideas about the foundation of the Earth. Some believed that it rested on elephants or on the backs of turtles. The Greeks believed that Atlas was the one who carried the Earth on his shoulders. In the book of Job, the oldest book of the Bible we are told:
Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
Before Darwin, and his contemporaries, such as Newton, Faraday, Pascal, Galileo and many others were devout Christians who believed in an orderly and precise Creator God whose works could and should be explored by man. Therefore we could give Him greater honor and stand in awe of Him and be benefited by what He has given to us.
...When I hear talk about global warming I say "Bring it on!"...
Indeed, I second that sentiment. Our planet was once a nice warm place where tropical plants grew in the now cold arctic wastelands. The desert where they now get the oil was once teeming with life that put the oil there in the first place.
...it's whether or not we need to worry about it,...
We don't have to worry about it at all. Evidence all over the earth shows that it was once about 40deg F or so warmer on average and there were no deserts. Places like the Sahara, now bone dry show evidence of having had plenty of water and abundant life at one time. The oil from the arabian deserts we now burn was put there by unimaginable quantities of living creatures growing where nothing much grows today. Same for the oil underneath the frozen wastes of Alaska.
So, global warming, even if it is true, and there is evidence it is, is nothing to worry about, but rather to welcome with great joy. The Bible even predicts a time when the deserts of earth will flow with water again and things will grow there where nothing much grows now.
Global warming would make the Earth more hospitable, like it once was when tropical life abounded in the now frozen wastelands and deserts of this planet. The CO2 and much more than we are now releasing was once in the atmosphere and became locked up in the fossil fuels we are now burning.
Really? So what! The fact is that tropical life flourished in the arctic latitudes once upon a time and could again. Gobal warming would make vast changes, but mostly beneficial. All the carbon we are now burning and much more was in the air once upon a time, long ago. Putting it all back would take a while.
As the CO2 content of the air goes up, the temperature goes up and the rate and the areas where things grow goes up also, especially in areas where life is now not nearly as abundant as it once was.
Evidence from the past also shows that while the earth was warm like that, the oceans were actually much lower. There were no deserts and life on land and in the sea was incredibly abundant. Where was all that water? It was in the atmosphere. Warm air can hold unbelievable amounts ouf moisture. Hurricanes prove that.
... because its WAY easier to make lots of money if you have lots of money and really hard to make it if you have none...
That is a bunch of BS. Mr. Gates, the wealthiest man in the US did not start out with much money at all. In the US, even still today, if you have a good idea and some business skills you too can get rich. Of course a measure of just plain old fashioned luck helped Mr. Gates and is certainly helpful if you want to get rich. In the US, more than in any other country, the barriers to riches are still the lowest.
...And what's wrong with a little redistribution of wealth ?...
It fine with me if it is YOUR wealth that is redistributed, not mine! There are lots of liberals who want to spend other people's money. Let them redistribute their own money instead.
...signed a document with some implicit agreement...
The president, be he republican or democrat has NO constitutional authority to enter into any treaty, explict or implicit. That is the prerogative of the US Senate.
...one nation producing over 25% of global CO2 emissions...
Where did all this CO2 your SUV is spewing into the atmosphere come from in the first place?
Answer: It was in the atmosphere at one time and living things converted it into fossil fuel for your gas tank a long time ago.
Now we are putting the CO2 back and then the cycle will repeat -- the climate will get warmer, the living things will grow like crazy and take the CO2 back out of the air and make more fuel for your gas tank.
...we actively make Earth's atmosphere resemble Venus'...
That could never happen unless someone figured out how to move the earth closer to the sun. However, the fact that tropical life once abounded in the now frozen areas of our planet indicates that it was at least 40deg F warmer on average than today and the oceans were actually quite a bit lower.
...the article talks about the sea level, and how a possible change of 20 meters...
All that is so much BS since it ignores the fact that a warmer atmosphere can hold VAST quantities of water. Right now most of the water is held in the bottom 3 to four miles of the atmosphere. Also the average temerpature of the air, world wide is so cold that the air cannot hold much. If the air would get to the temperature it once was, when tropical living things flourished in the now frozen northern and southern latitudes, more water would be held in the now warm air and to much higher altitudes of 7 or 8 miles up. Back then, the ocean levels were such that most of today's continental shelves were dry land. The climate change emperor has no clothes.
...It's not "Global Warming" it's "Global Climate Change."...
Great I'd say, lets have a warmer climate -- we'd be less dependent on Arab oil to keep our rear ends warm, they'd get less money to fund terrorists and vast now uininhabitable frozen wastelands would give humanity more living space. Everyone could afford an iPod with the savings of the heating bills.
...mean temperatures will rise by 3 degrees or 5 degrees...
Big deal. There is evidence that the whole Earth was once at least 40deg F warmer than it is today and at the same time the oceans were much lower, so that most of today's continental shelves were dry land. At that time there were no deserts and the now frozen northern and southern wastelands teemed with life at least as abundant as in the tropics of today.
So bring on the warm, it would be nice never to have to shovel snow again, have your car spin out and crash on an icy road, cut down and chop firewood or pay a monstrous heating bill. If I could warm the Earth like that, I'd do it tonight.
All scientists once believed the Earth was flat, was supported on pillars or carried by Atlas etc.
Besides, exactly why is global warming so terrible? The ocean rising is a bunch of BS. First of all, if the north polar ice all melts the seas won't rise an inch since that ice is floating and thereby displacing the water already. The ice melting on the land would raise the oceans IF the added water could not be held in the now warmer atmosphere. Warm air can hold immense quantities of water, as any huricane demonstrates.
At one time there were tropical plants and animals in the arctic areas of this planet. Growing bananas in Siberia wouldn't be so bad now would it? If the Earth became as warm as it was when the fossil fuels we now burn were made, what would be so bad about that?
Warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95-105 deg F because that is where the reactions of life proceed at optimum. If the average temperature of the Earth approached this range, life here would positively explode in abundance. When the Earth was warm like this, the oceans were actually several hundred feet lower than they are today. Most of the continental shelves were dry land.
So even IF global warming is true and IF this warming is due to man's activity, so what? The deserts of the Earth would disappear and vast frozen wastelands could support agriculture and an unimagined proliferation of wildlife.
Such extreme warming would only happen over a long period of time, (centuries or longer) giving living things, including man plenty of time to adjust.
That is exactly a problem with LINUX's incompatible versions that only a geek can use. An ordinary user cannot go and buy off the shelf or order off the 'net many programs that will run on all versions of LINUX. Until the LINUX community standardizes as well as Windows or the Mac, LINUX will always be a system for professional expers, like most/. readers are.
...And plants are green because there is a lot of green light...
Actually, plants are green because they REFLECT the green light. The energy of the photons (color) has to be matched to the molecular binding energies in order for the molecules to capture and store a significant portion of the energy. You can think of it as a kind of molecular resonant circuit. The random probabilites that these energies should match is the akin to randomly trying to create a resonant circuit to respond to a particular radio station.
If you want to measure anything, you must be sure that the measuring device doesn't change. To measure time we use clocks based on regular motion. All motion is governed either by gravitational forces or atomic forces. The gravitational equations do not have terms involving time, but he equations of the atomic behavior do. If any of these "constants" governing the atom are variable, then the clocks, such as radioactive decay are also variable. There is evidence that some of these "constants" are not invariant but have caused these "clocks" to slow down over time. Gravitational clocks, such as tree-ring data from the ancient bristle cone pines of the White Mountains of California corroberate the approximate 6000 year time frame remarkably well, yet mineral decay data give their age a much greater value. From red-shift data it appears that atomic clocks ran as much as 100 million time faster when the Universe was young. Time itself is affected by mass, accelleration and gravity. Therefore all the figures of immense periods of atomic time have to be compensated for and may not be all that great.
Slashdot Mirror
...solution that todays users need...
There are really only two ways, something you know (password) or something you have or both together. Anyone who has ever lost a set of keys know the something you have method will then lock you out. Security and ease of use have always been at loggerheads. Like a master key, a master password is a solution that is a good compromise of security and ease of use. Apple has such a system built into their OSX and I have a master password which unlocks all the other passwords.
....they require a password change every few months...
I have one single easy to remember alphanumeric password I have used for about 5 years now. I lets me log into my computer, which then unlocks the keychain which contains at least 15 passwords. Whenever I get asked to change some password, I change it in the keychain and on that server/system to some random string of ASCII codes which I never need to remember. For most systems, the keychain supplies the new password when prompted, but for some I have to look it up in the keychain and type or paste it into the login screen. Unless someone would know or guess my master password all password are safe.
I have over 15 passwords, but they are all encrypted under my laptop keychain which requires one encrypted password to unlock. For many servers and websites, the keychain automatically supplies the correct password, for some, I have to look them up in the unlocked keychain window and then type them in.
If someone wanted to install a keystroke logger on the laptop or if it got stolen, they'd have to know the admin password. If they would boot the computer from an outside disk or CD they could get into the computer and change the admin password, but they would not be able to unclock the keychain with it.
I think that Apple's arrangement for security and ease of use is better than many of the "secure" but inconvenient password management schemes commonly available. This way I only had to come up with one good, memorable, impossible or at least impractical to crack password.
...cleaned viri off of two family members' computers...
I do that once for them and after that I tell them that I use a Mac that doesn't get any of that malware and that I don't have and never have wasted a penny on anti-virus software. Several of them have since turned off their virus and spyware infested Windows machines for good and switched to Mac and are very happy.
...life everywhere except in Arctic was dead...
There is no evidence that life in the now tropical areas was EVER dead. There is plenty of evidence that the ENTIRE planet was UNIFORMLY warm, from pole to pole and the tropics were no hotter than they are today. A warm water saturated atmosphere will distribute the solar energy the Earth receives very well. Especially the upper atmosphere, now very cold was warm then. Water is also a very good shield for high energy radiation from the sun and other extraterrestrial sources. That is one reason water is used in nuclear reactors as a moderator.
Pure water vapor is lighter than either oxygen or nitrogen. It tends to rise until it reaches the colder part of the atmosphere where it condenses around the dust particles and precipitates out again.
If the atmosphere, especially the upper part above 7 or so miles is warm, then the condensation will not take place. Also, barring a catastrophic event such as a large volcanic eruption or a large meteor strike, the upper part of the atmosphere is relatively free of particles around which droplets can form. It is this warm layer of almost pure water vapor that distributes warmth and keeps more of the sun's heat from escaping into space. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but pure water vapor even more so, because water, gaseous or liquid, holds a huge amount of latent heat. We know that large bodies of water moderate the climate around them. A large body of water, equivalent to about 200-300 feet of ocean volume in the upper atmosphere would have a world wide effect. There is evidence that the oceans were about that much lower in the past.
It appears NOT to work with Safari. I clicked on the links and nothing happened except the page disappeared and then came back. There never was a second window of any kind.
...Enjoy your 140 degree summers!...
It's more like I'd enjoy 85 to 95 deg F summers, uniformly, all over the Earth, including the poles.
...You are confusing "scientists" with "religious nuts"....
Before a few hundred years ago the "religious nuts" as you call them, the scientists, or scientific philosophers as they were called then, were one and the same. Based on their observations the Earth appeared flat and therefore that is what was considered to be true by most of them.
Certain "religious nuts" who were in communication with the Creator God who IS, got it right, whereas the ones who depended on observations alone got it wrong for a long long time.
God tells us in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is not flat like the scientists of Isaiah's day thought, but is circular. Indeed the Hebrew word chwug (pronounced --> khoog) literally means spherical, like an orange or apple. It was 1700 years later that a Greek mathematician named Erathenes proved that the earth must be spherical.
None the myths about what supports the Earth that abounded in the ancient world are found in the Word of God. Man has always had very imaginative ideas about the foundation of the Earth. Some believed that it rested on elephants or on the backs of turtles. The Greeks believed that Atlas was the one who carried the Earth on his shoulders. In the book of Job, the oldest book of the Bible we are told:
Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
Before Darwin, and his contemporaries, such as Newton, Faraday, Pascal, Galileo and many others were devout Christians who believed in an orderly and precise Creator God whose works could and should be explored by man. Therefore we could give Him greater honor and stand in awe of Him and be benefited by what He has given to us.
...You'll have a cooling bill instead...
Not really, you'd need clothes only because of modesty, not to keep warm. 90deg F is quite bearable if you are almost naked.
...When I hear talk about global warming I say "Bring it on!" ...
Indeed, I second that sentiment. Our planet was once a nice warm place where tropical plants grew in the now cold arctic wastelands. The desert where they now get the oil was once teeming with life that put the oil there in the first place.
...it's whether or not we need to worry about it, ...
We don't have to worry about it at all. Evidence all over the earth shows that it was once about 40deg F or so warmer on average and there were no deserts. Places like the Sahara, now bone dry show evidence of having had plenty of water and abundant life at one time. The oil from the arabian deserts we now burn was put there by unimaginable quantities of living creatures growing where nothing much grows today. Same for the oil underneath the frozen wastes of Alaska.
So, global warming, even if it is true, and there is evidence it is, is nothing to worry about, but rather to welcome with great joy. The Bible even predicts a time when the deserts of earth will flow with water again and things will grow there where nothing much grows now.
...the earth become inhospitable...
Global warming would make the Earth more hospitable, like it once was when tropical life abounded in the now frozen wastelands and deserts of this planet. The CO2 and much more than we are now releasing was once in the atmosphere and became locked up in the fossil fuels we are now burning.
...However global warming is a big issue...
Really? So what! The fact is that tropical life flourished in the arctic latitudes once upon a time and could again. Gobal warming would make vast changes, but mostly beneficial. All the carbon we are now burning and much more was in the air once upon a time, long ago. Putting it all back would take a while.
As the CO2 content of the air goes up, the temperature goes up and the rate and the areas where things grow goes up also, especially in areas where life is now not nearly as abundant as it once was.
Evidence from the past also shows that while the earth was warm like that, the oceans were actually much lower. There were no deserts and life on land and in the sea was incredibly abundant. Where was all that water? It was in the atmosphere. Warm air can hold unbelievable amounts ouf moisture. Hurricanes prove that.
... because its WAY easier to make lots of money if you have lots of money and really hard to make it if you have none...
That is a bunch of BS. Mr. Gates, the wealthiest man in the US did not start out with much money at all. In the US, even still today, if you have a good idea and some business skills you too can get rich. Of course a measure of just plain old fashioned luck helped Mr. Gates and is certainly helpful if you want to get rich. In the US, more than in any other country, the barriers to riches are still the lowest.
...And what's wrong with a little redistribution of wealth ?...
It fine with me if it is YOUR wealth that is redistributed, not mine! There are lots of liberals who want to spend other people's money. Let them redistribute their own money instead.
...signed a document with some implicit agreement...
The president, be he republican or democrat has NO constitutional authority to enter into any treaty, explict or implicit. That is the prerogative of the US Senate.
...one nation producing over 25% of global CO2 emissions...
Where did all this CO2 your SUV is spewing into the atmosphere come from in the first place?
Answer: It was in the atmosphere at one time and living things converted it into fossil fuel for your gas tank a long time ago.
Now we are putting the CO2 back and then the cycle will repeat -- the climate will get warmer, the living things will grow like crazy and take the CO2 back out of the air and make more fuel for your gas tank.
...we actively make Earth's atmosphere resemble Venus'...
That could never happen unless someone figured out how to move the earth closer to the sun. However, the fact that tropical life once abounded in the now frozen areas of our planet indicates that it was at least 40deg F warmer on average than today and the oceans were actually quite a bit lower.
...the article talks about the sea level, and how a possible change of 20 meters...
All that is so much BS since it ignores the fact that a warmer atmosphere can hold VAST quantities of water. Right now most of the water is held in the bottom 3 to four miles of the atmosphere. Also the average temerpature of the air, world wide is so cold that the air cannot hold much. If the air would get to the temperature it once was, when tropical living things flourished in the now frozen northern and southern latitudes, more water would be held in the now warm air and to much higher altitudes of 7 or 8 miles up. Back then, the ocean levels were such that most of today's continental shelves were dry land. The climate change emperor has no clothes.
...It's not "Global Warming" it's "Global Climate Change." ...
Great I'd say, lets have a warmer climate -- we'd be less dependent on Arab oil to keep our rear ends warm, they'd get less money to fund terrorists and vast now uininhabitable frozen wastelands would give humanity more living space. Everyone could afford an iPod with the savings of the heating bills.
...mean temperatures will rise by 3 degrees or 5 degrees...
Big deal. There is evidence that the whole Earth was once at least 40deg F warmer than it is today and at the same time the oceans were much lower, so that most of today's continental shelves were dry land. At that time there were no deserts and the now frozen northern and southern wastelands teemed with life at least as abundant as in the tropics of today.
So bring on the warm, it would be nice never to have to shovel snow again, have your car spin out and crash on an icy road, cut down and chop firewood or pay a monstrous heating bill. If I could warm the Earth like that, I'd do it tonight.
...because the consequences are catastrophic...
All scientists once believed the Earth was flat, was supported on pillars or carried by Atlas etc.
Besides, exactly why is global warming so terrible? The ocean rising is a bunch of BS. First of all, if the north polar ice all melts the seas won't rise an inch since that ice is floating and thereby displacing the water already. The ice melting on the land would raise the oceans IF the added water could not be held in the now warmer atmosphere. Warm air can hold immense quantities of water, as any huricane demonstrates.
At one time there were tropical plants and animals in the arctic areas of this planet. Growing bananas in Siberia wouldn't be so bad now would it? If the Earth became as warm as it was when the fossil fuels we now burn were made, what would be so bad about that?
Warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95-105 deg F because that is where the reactions of life proceed at optimum. If the average temperature of the Earth approached this range, life here would positively explode in abundance. When the Earth was warm like this, the oceans were actually several hundred feet lower than they are today. Most of the continental shelves were dry land.
So even IF global warming is true and IF this warming is due to man's activity, so what? The deserts of the Earth would disappear and vast frozen wastelands could support agriculture and an unimagined proliferation of wildlife.
Such extreme warming would only happen over a long period of time, (centuries or longer) giving living things, including man plenty of time to adjust.
...various distributions of Linux...
/. readers are.
That is exactly a problem with LINUX's incompatible versions that only a geek can use. An ordinary user cannot go and buy off the shelf or order off the 'net many programs that will run on all versions of LINUX. Until the LINUX community standardizes as well as Windows or the Mac, LINUX will always be a system for professional expers, like most
...And plants are green because there is a lot of green light...
Actually, plants are green because they REFLECT the green light. The energy of the photons (color) has to be matched to the molecular binding energies in order for the molecules to capture and store a significant portion of the energy. You can think of it as a kind of molecular resonant circuit. The random probabilites that these energies should match is the akin to randomly trying to create a resonant circuit to respond to a particular radio station.
... the earth is really not 6000 years old...
If you want to measure anything, you must be sure that the measuring device doesn't change. To measure time we use clocks based on regular motion. All motion is governed either by gravitational forces or atomic forces. The gravitational equations do not have terms involving time, but he equations of the atomic behavior do. If any of these "constants" governing the atom are variable, then the clocks, such as radioactive decay are also variable. There is evidence that some of these "constants" are not invariant but have caused these "clocks" to slow down over time. Gravitational clocks, such as tree-ring data from the ancient bristle cone pines of the White Mountains of California corroberate the approximate 6000 year time frame remarkably well, yet mineral decay data give their age a much greater value. From red-shift data it appears that atomic clocks ran as much as 100 million time faster when the Universe was young. Time itself is affected by mass, accelleration and gravity. Therefore all the figures of immense periods of atomic time have to be compensated for and may not be all that great.