Yeah, companies are "fascist". They have every right to be.
There is your problem right there. You think property rights are absolute and everything is fine as long as it can be justified by property rights. And that, exactly, is fascist thinking. When you think that you have an absolute right that trumps other rights.
In the real world, property rights are not absolute. There are limitations what you can do with your property, and rightly so.
This is the neocon poison at its purest. Thinking that a corporation can do anything because it owns its stuff. But the stuff is only a fraction of what makes up a corporation.
I'm not sure how overnight delivery of a book has anything to do with the "free Internet", and I don't think you know how, either.
Not my fault if you can't think around a corner. Amazon wants to be a monopoly. It doesn't want to participate in a market, it wants to control that market. Control is the enemy of freedom. Not so difficult once someone spells it out for you, is it? You can connect the last two dots by yourself, can't you?
Wow. You mean the corporations that people are paying to provide web servers so everyone and their brother can have their own website or blog? Those evil corporations that are stepping in to fill the demand for services that people are willing to pay for?
Those exactly, and that you take a page out of the neocon marketing textbook doesn't change the facts.
Amazon has a stated desire and goal: To be the delivery service for anything that can be delivered. Bezos has more than once stated clearly that he intends to be the only kid on the block.
It's THEIR HARDWARE and THEIR SYSTEM. You don't get to tell them how to run their company, and I don't see why you should think you do.
You are completely trapped inside extremist capitalist thinking. So it's their stuff, but who makes it run? Who invents, designs, builds and runs those systems? It is absolutely possible to imagine a system where the people who make up a company are more than wage-slaves. Where ownership of the hardware or building or machines or whatever is just one factor among several that determines who has a say in things.
Open your mind and imagine - the world as it is today is not the only possible world that we could make. We humans could simply decide to do things differently, and there are plenty reasons that we might want to do that.
The presence of corporations in the "network" is hardly a new thing, and hardly the fascist jackboot on your throat that you seem to think it is.
There's something that changed. I've been online before there was a public Internet. My first e-mail came through the FIDO network. It didn't take long for companies to participate in electronic networks. But the difference, you see, was that they were guests there just like everyone else, they didn't pretend to own the place.
Ironically, that is exactly how corporations were envisoned by the Founding Fathers in the real world as well. As limited cooperations between people for a specific purpose. Originally, corporations were intended to dissolve after completing the task that they had been formed for (say, build a railroad line).
The key thing about a fascist society is that its members have no choice.
That is bullshit. In all real fascist governments so far, people quite willingly brought them to power. They were the choice of their generation.
An employee of a corporation (however hierarchical its organisation structure), has not surrendered their freedom.
Yes, you have the freedom to leave the company. But the internal workings of a corporation are very similar to the internal workings of a fascist government. That you can get out is meaningless to the definition of the system.
Try telling even a non-fascist government that you no longer wish to receive government services and will therefore cease paying taxes, and see how that goes...
Bad comparison. When you leave a company, they expect you to abandon your desk and give back the company car. The comparison would have to be leaving a country - which you can do and then you don't have to pay taxes there anymore.
To try to equate the two is just silly.
Nothing in the definition of fascism requires expansion by force. It just happens that where countries are concerned, that's the usual model. Expansionism and belief in superiority ("we are the best") is very well comparable. The method of implementing them can be different.
or powered by megacorporations like Amazon and Google.
This.
Because while our governments are slowly turning fascist, corporations are facists. Think about it. Strict top-down control. No democracy or participation at any level (I'm talking about real participation, not token "we listen to your ideas" events). All in the name of superiority and expansionism.
If we want to have a free Internet, corporations are the real enemy.
True, that is the worst thing anyone ever came up with, and it solves exactly zero problems. It's a lazy-man fix. I have an article upcoming where I explain that in detail.
Yes -- and this is all a very strong argument against password reuse, rather than so much concern about "strong passwords" in most cases to begin with.
Users will re-use password, it's a fact, deal with it.
A typical user has how many passwords to how many different programs, accounts and sites? 200 maybe? Nobody who is not autistic can remember 200 reasonably good passwords.
I use the same password for maybe 100 different sites. All these forums and other unimportant sites where the worst that can happen to me is that someone posts some shit under my name. Half of them I will probably never visit again after I got what I came for during the first week. Give me one reason to make up a unique password for them.
The only unique passwords I have are for online banking, the government ID system and the root accounts of my servers. All other passwords are from pools. There are some that are shared between a lot of sites (like above) and some that are re-used only 3 or 4 times (e.g. the normal user account login on my desktop and on my notebook is the same).
memory-hostile (the mind recalls the known better than the unfamiliar)
#4. Long. I prefer 32 characters long.
user-hostile
Thank you for explaining in just four points why normal users think that security dudes are assholes and sabotage the rules made by them wherever they can.
The first thing you need to do is stop listening to statistics someone else faked.
Of all the various ways in which attackers can gain passwords, only two involve cracking them (brute-force and cracking a password database). One of them should be a non-issue, because any software or service that doesn't protect against brute-force is fundamentally broken and shouldn't be trusted with your password anyway. Make your password "a", save everyone the trouble. For a password database crack, firstly the security of the server already failed, and then you're at their mercy a second time because if the password is stored unencrypted, you're fucked. If the password is stored hashed but not salted, you are pretty much fucked. And if the password is properly hashed and salted, congratulations you have the one scenario where a good password actually matters.
In all other attacks on your password, from phishing to shoulder-surfing and keyloggers, it doesn't matter how good your password is, how long it is or how complex it is.
So, if you are really so concerned about the one scenario that you are ready to type V9AnKH5Crpfukuy5gAFB till the end of your days, go to https://www.random.org/passwor... and fire it up. Because all the hints you find on making a "good" password are also known to the people writing password crackers and coded into the pertubation algorithms. True randomness is your best bet.
The one thing that matters, and there's an article about it but I'm too lazy to google it, is length. Length > Complexity. "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" is more secure than any variation of 8 characters ever will be, simply because, at least until this post, no password cracker would run the chain like a, aa, aaa, aaaa,... to arbitrary length.
IMHO, and I am an expert in the field and given speeches about password security, forget all the "password complexity" rules, they are all bullshit. They're the safety net that makes sure that "password" is not a legal password on your system. But the world continuously invents better idiots, so "password1!" is and you're fucked anyway.
The elephant in the room is, of course, quality of life. Which has been going down for a large part of the population for a long time now. Enough years to use up whatever reserves existed.
The increasing class warfare against the poor and middle class is raising stress levels, causing depression, removing options for rest and recovery (holidays, days off, etc.) -- all things that cause health issues.
Experts are puzzled because there isn't one cause, there is a multitude of soft causes that are difficult to quantify and measure. I'm quite sure the experts aren't clueless, they just can't prove their suspicions so far because of these difficulties.
and Gates is one of those people who have seen thousands of people suck big time at programming over multiple decades.
Including himself. Also, he was CEO for a long time, if he saw people suck, why didn't he stop them instead of shipping the shit they produced?
No, he's just a B-celebrity now, making statements to stay in the press. His tech predictions are famously wrong pretty much all the time. I think he'd lose a competition against a random headline generator.
The history of AI is full of speculations about when it will have its final breakthrough and there is a long list of projects said to finally provide it. Cyc is maybe the most famous one. "With Cyc", people said, "AI will finally come around".
It's just that this has been going on for 30 years. We've been waiting for the big AI breakthrough for longer than for the year of Linux on the desktop.
The official reason is different than the summary states:
"Foreign messaging companies active in the country are required to transfer all data and activity linked to Iranian citizens into the country in order to ensure their continued activity,"
And honestly, that's a good lie if it even is one. Iran is not on the good side of the USA and knows that if their citizens and businesses rely on US services, those can be shut down at any time. Moving them into the country is, frankly speaking, something that I would have recommended to them as a consultant. If you cannot rely on your third party providers, move the services in-house. It's pretty basic.
That said, of course it also makes surveilance easier. But again, the question for Iran may not have been "do we want surveilance of our citizens?" but more akin to "do we want the NSA or our own secret service monitors our citizens?" to which the answer is obvious.
You see, if the infrastructure is within Iran, they gain the ability to block out NSA surveilance, even that built in to the Apps through backdoors, by shutting down the outgoing Internet connections. If things get ugly again, you would want to at least have that option.
It sickens me that this is painted as a "state government vs. freedom" issue when it is almost certainly more a question of two tyranical police states fighting for control.
Nor is any other commonly used language. PHP has a bad reputation because it's easy to get started with, so lots and lots of people write crappy software with it who wouldn't get their piece of shit to compile in other languages.
The security of your application still primarily depends on your application.
I'm not so much upset about the misuse of crowdfunding. I wonder what it says about a major corporation if they can't (or don't want to) fund their own product development.
The other simple truth is that you can't keep up exponential growth for a very long time.
Imagine the entire economy would consist of making and eating Hamburgers. Sure you can grow by 10% for a few years, by making and eating more burgers. If your imaginary economy is 1000 people and they start with eating 2 burgers a day, they can certainly eat a third one once a week or so. You can also invent new burger flavours that people eat just for the pleasure. But after growing for just 12 years at 10%, people need to eat more than 3 burgers a day. After 15 years, 4 burgers a day. And after 25 years, more than 10 burgers a day.
In the real world, of course, growth works longer by inventing new things that we didn't need before and so on, but you can expand the argument to resources used or time spent on using all the things you buy. You can spread the growth over longer times, but the simple truth is that an economic model that relies on exponential growth as its core concept is fundamentally flawed.
In the real world, the ugly truth is that economic crisis is the way in which capitalism avoids this problem. Every few years, we simply correct the growth curve downwards with a crisis. If our burger economy crashes every 10 years, destroying a third of the wealth (and production capacity), it can sustain itself and its growth curve almost indefinitely.
The problem is that they're caught in not just one, but two positive feedback loops.
Firstly, the people on the board who decide these wages are often C*Os somewhere else, where the guy they decide about now is on the board. In other words: It's a small incest fuckfest where you want to give gratiously so that you are given in return.
Secondly, with wages as they are, if you want to hire a good C*O, then this is what they cost, because this how wages are. Any single company trying to reduce C*O wages to sane levels would be left alone, without good candidates, because they can all get crazy wages elsewhere.
This is where a prime example of a system that has caught itself in a deadlock. Someone needs to step in from the outside to stop it. Stock holders can't - they are largely part of the problem. So the government will have to, but it won't because they're all bought, corrupt and incompetent.
So it's going to end as it always does. It will continue until it becomes so unbearable that the whole system needs to change and people die. In arbitrary order.
It's been long overdue that we replace mindless jobs with robots. There are so many jobs out there that should not be done by human beings.
The main reason it hasn't happened is that we cling to this outdated model of having to work for a living. Just for the moment make one step away from the hyper-competitiveness we've all been brainwashed into. Consider the productive output of your country to be a team result. (funny how "teamwork" is en vogue when it comes to producing something, but not when discussing the profits from it). Now consider the crazy idea of distributing the profit, or let's say half of the profit, among everyone in the country simply as a way to say that all of us in one way or the other contributed to it. Let the filthy rich keep the other half, fine with me, we don't have to put them up against a wall.
Imagine (to quote Lennon) if everyone in western countries were given a small income by the government, simply for existing. No conditions. Maybe you are working somewhere, maybe you are an artist, maybe you just make people happy around you, maybe you are taking care of a home and children. It doesn't matter, one way or the other, you are contributing to society.
If people had enough to survive, they would not be so willing to do mindless jobs for tiny money. Companies that rely on shit jobs would be faced with two choices: Pay enough for them to make it interesting for people to take the job, or replace them with machines. The amount of innovation this pressure would generate, can you imagine?
Let McD replace workers with robots. I'm sure 90% of the jobs there can be automated and it would be better for humanity if they would. A thinking, feeling being should not flip burgers for eight hours a day.
While not allowing "common" passwords is not the worse idea, in general the more password rules you make, the worse passwords you'll get. In the end people end up writing them on post-it notes...
Not if you are smart about it. Yes, if you just add rules, this is what will happen. Been there, given speeches about it. But if you adopt a few good rules, you can actually improve password security a lot.
And not allowing 123456 as a password is such an obvious step, I wonder it took so long. Don't they hire anyone with a brain at Mickeysoft?
But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
There was a time when Microsoft was in the IBM "no one ever got fired for buying..." position.
Now we have statements like this in (more or less) mainstream press, not just techie circles. That's a long way to fall, when having Microsoft on your CV is held against you.
Another fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Apple is a hardware company, a media company. It's not a software company or an Internet company. It has little incentive to invest in AI research. It can happily sit this one out and simply buy whatever startup comes up with something promising.
The essence is: If you have a normal life cycle, breakfast means you haven't eaten anything for the past 10 hours, and probably it's not a bad idea to give your body some energy.
Of course, if you're eating for three already, like most overweight people, you can just as well skip three days to burn some fat.
I am pointing out the stupidity of the GPs point by exaggerating it so it becomes clear just how crazy the demand to do business in whatever way he wants to is. It's called reductio ad absurdum.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, companies are "fascist". They have every right to be.
There is your problem right there. You think property rights are absolute and everything is fine as long as it can be justified by property rights. And that, exactly, is fascist thinking. When you think that you have an absolute right that trumps other rights.
In the real world, property rights are not absolute. There are limitations what you can do with your property, and rightly so.
This is the neocon poison at its purest. Thinking that a corporation can do anything because it owns its stuff. But the stuff is only a fraction of what makes up a corporation.
I'm not sure how overnight delivery of a book has anything to do with the "free Internet", and I don't think you know how, either.
Not my fault if you can't think around a corner. Amazon wants to be a monopoly. It doesn't want to participate in a market, it wants to control that market. Control is the enemy of freedom. Not so difficult once someone spells it out for you, is it? You can connect the last two dots by yourself, can't you?
Wow. You mean the corporations that people are paying to provide web servers so everyone and their brother can have their own website or blog? Those evil corporations that are stepping in to fill the demand for services that people are willing to pay for?
Those exactly, and that you take a page out of the neocon marketing textbook doesn't change the facts.
Amazon has a stated desire and goal: To be the delivery service for anything that can be delivered. Bezos has more than once stated clearly that he intends to be the only kid on the block.
It's THEIR HARDWARE and THEIR SYSTEM. You don't get to tell them how to run their company, and I don't see why you should think you do.
You are completely trapped inside extremist capitalist thinking. So it's their stuff, but who makes it run? Who invents, designs, builds and runs those systems? It is absolutely possible to imagine a system where the people who make up a company are more than wage-slaves. Where ownership of the hardware or building or machines or whatever is just one factor among several that determines who has a say in things.
Open your mind and imagine - the world as it is today is not the only possible world that we could make. We humans could simply decide to do things differently, and there are plenty reasons that we might want to do that.
The presence of corporations in the "network" is hardly a new thing, and hardly the fascist jackboot on your throat that you seem to think it is.
There's something that changed. I've been online before there was a public Internet. My first e-mail came through the FIDO network. It didn't take long for companies to participate in electronic networks. But the difference, you see, was that they were guests there just like everyone else, they didn't pretend to own the place.
Ironically, that is exactly how corporations were envisoned by the Founding Fathers in the real world as well. As limited cooperations between people for a specific purpose. Originally, corporations were intended to dissolve after completing the task that they had been formed for (say, build a railroad line).
The key thing about a fascist society is that its members have no choice.
That is bullshit. In all real fascist governments so far, people quite willingly brought them to power. They were the choice of their generation.
An employee of a corporation (however hierarchical its organisation structure), has not surrendered their freedom.
Yes, you have the freedom to leave the company. But the internal workings of a corporation are very similar to the internal workings of a fascist government. That you can get out is meaningless to the definition of the system.
Try telling even a non-fascist government that you no longer wish to receive government services and will therefore cease paying taxes, and see how that goes...
Bad comparison. When you leave a company, they expect you to abandon your desk and give back the company car. The comparison would have to be leaving a country - which you can do and then you don't have to pay taxes there anymore.
To try to equate the two is just silly.
Nothing in the definition of fascism requires expansion by force. It just happens that where countries are concerned, that's the usual model. Expansionism and belief in superiority ("we are the best") is very well comparable. The method of implementing them can be different.
or powered by megacorporations like Amazon and Google.
This.
Because while our governments are slowly turning fascist, corporations are facists. Think about it. Strict top-down control. No democracy or participation at any level (I'm talking about real participation, not token "we listen to your ideas" events). All in the name of superiority and expansionism.
If we want to have a free Internet, corporations are the real enemy.
True, that is the worst thing anyone ever came up with, and it solves exactly zero problems. It's a lazy-man fix. I have an article upcoming where I explain that in detail.
Yes -- and this is all a very strong argument against password reuse, rather than so much concern about "strong passwords" in most cases to begin with.
Users will re-use password, it's a fact, deal with it.
A typical user has how many passwords to how many different programs, accounts and sites? 200 maybe? Nobody who is not autistic can remember 200 reasonably good passwords.
I use the same password for maybe 100 different sites. All these forums and other unimportant sites where the worst that can happen to me is that someone posts some shit under my name. Half of them I will probably never visit again after I got what I came for during the first week. Give me one reason to make up a unique password for them.
The only unique passwords I have are for online banking, the government ID system and the root accounts of my servers. All other passwords are from pools. There are some that are shared between a lot of sites (like above) and some that are re-used only 3 or 4 times (e.g. the normal user account login on my desktop and on my notebook is the same).
#1. No password re-use. Ever.
user-hostile
#2. Not formulaic.
memory-hostile (the mind loves patterns)
#3. Not in a dictionary list.
memory-hostile (the mind recalls the known better than the unfamiliar)
#4. Long. I prefer 32 characters long.
user-hostile
Thank you for explaining in just four points why normal users think that security dudes are assholes and sabotage the rules made by them wherever they can.
The first thing you need to do is stop listening to statistics someone else faked.
Of all the various ways in which attackers can gain passwords, only two involve cracking them (brute-force and cracking a password database). One of them should be a non-issue, because any software or service that doesn't protect against brute-force is fundamentally broken and shouldn't be trusted with your password anyway. Make your password "a", save everyone the trouble. For a password database crack, firstly the security of the server already failed, and then you're at their mercy a second time because if the password is stored unencrypted, you're fucked. If the password is stored hashed but not salted, you are pretty much fucked. And if the password is properly hashed and salted, congratulations you have the one scenario where a good password actually matters.
In all other attacks on your password, from phishing to shoulder-surfing and keyloggers, it doesn't matter how good your password is, how long it is or how complex it is.
So, if you are really so concerned about the one scenario that you are ready to type V9AnKH5Crpfukuy5gAFB till the end of your days, go to https://www.random.org/passwor... and fire it up. Because all the hints you find on making a "good" password are also known to the people writing password crackers and coded into the pertubation algorithms. True randomness is your best bet.
The one thing that matters, and there's an article about it but I'm too lazy to google it, is length. Length > Complexity. "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" is more secure than any variation of 8 characters ever will be, simply because, at least until this post, no password cracker would run the chain like a, aa, aaa, aaaa, ... to arbitrary length.
IMHO, and I am an expert in the field and given speeches about password security, forget all the "password complexity" rules, they are all bullshit. They're the safety net that makes sure that "password" is not a legal password on your system. But the world continuously invents better idiots, so "password1!" is and you're fucked anyway.
The elephant in the room is, of course, quality of life. Which has been going down for a large part of the population for a long time now. Enough years to use up whatever reserves existed.
The increasing class warfare against the poor and middle class is raising stress levels, causing depression, removing options for rest and recovery (holidays, days off, etc.) -- all things that cause health issues.
Experts are puzzled because there isn't one cause, there is a multitude of soft causes that are difficult to quantify and measure. I'm quite sure the experts aren't clueless, they just can't prove their suspicions so far because of these difficulties.
and Gates is one of those people who have seen thousands of people suck big time at programming over multiple decades.
Including himself. Also, he was CEO for a long time, if he saw people suck, why didn't he stop them instead of shipping the shit they produced?
No, he's just a B-celebrity now, making statements to stay in the press. His tech predictions are famously wrong pretty much all the time. I think he'd lose a competition against a random headline generator.
The history of AI is full of speculations about when it will have its final breakthrough and there is a long list of projects said to finally provide it. Cyc is maybe the most famous one. "With Cyc", people said, "AI will finally come around".
It's just that this has been going on for 30 years. We've been waiting for the big AI breakthrough for longer than for the year of Linux on the desktop.
The official reason is different than the summary states:
"Foreign messaging companies active in the country are required to transfer all data and activity linked to Iranian citizens into the country in order to ensure their continued activity,"
And honestly, that's a good lie if it even is one. Iran is not on the good side of the USA and knows that if their citizens and businesses rely on US services, those can be shut down at any time. Moving them into the country is, frankly speaking, something that I would have recommended to them as a consultant. If you cannot rely on your third party providers, move the services in-house. It's pretty basic.
That said, of course it also makes surveilance easier. But again, the question for Iran may not have been "do we want surveilance of our citizens?" but more akin to "do we want the NSA or our own secret service monitors our citizens?" to which the answer is obvious.
You see, if the infrastructure is within Iran, they gain the ability to block out NSA surveilance, even that built in to the Apps through backdoors, by shutting down the outgoing Internet connections. If things get ugly again, you would want to at least have that option.
It sickens me that this is painted as a "state government vs. freedom" issue when it is almost certainly more a question of two tyranical police states fighting for control.
Nor is any other commonly used language. PHP has a bad reputation because it's easy to get started with, so lots and lots of people write crappy software with it who wouldn't get their piece of shit to compile in other languages.
The security of your application still primarily depends on your application.
I'm not so much upset about the misuse of crowdfunding. I wonder what it says about a major corporation if they can't (or don't want to) fund their own product development.
So, let me get this straight, a major electronics company brings out a new product - and crowdfunds it? Seriously?
The other simple truth is that you can't keep up exponential growth for a very long time.
Imagine the entire economy would consist of making and eating Hamburgers. Sure you can grow by 10% for a few years, by making and eating more burgers. If your imaginary economy is 1000 people and they start with eating 2 burgers a day, they can certainly eat a third one once a week or so. You can also invent new burger flavours that people eat just for the pleasure. But after growing for just 12 years at 10%, people need to eat more than 3 burgers a day. After 15 years, 4 burgers a day. And after 25 years, more than 10 burgers a day.
In the real world, of course, growth works longer by inventing new things that we didn't need before and so on, but you can expand the argument to resources used or time spent on using all the things you buy. You can spread the growth over longer times, but the simple truth is that an economic model that relies on exponential growth as its core concept is fundamentally flawed.
In the real world, the ugly truth is that economic crisis is the way in which capitalism avoids this problem. Every few years, we simply correct the growth curve downwards with a crisis. If our burger economy crashes every 10 years, destroying a third of the wealth (and production capacity), it can sustain itself and its growth curve almost indefinitely.
It's long been known that C*O wages are insane.
The problem is that they're caught in not just one, but two positive feedback loops.
Firstly, the people on the board who decide these wages are often C*Os somewhere else, where the guy they decide about now is on the board. In other words: It's a small incest fuckfest where you want to give gratiously so that you are given in return.
Secondly, with wages as they are, if you want to hire a good C*O, then this is what they cost, because this how wages are. Any single company trying to reduce C*O wages to sane levels would be left alone, without good candidates, because they can all get crazy wages elsewhere.
This is where a prime example of a system that has caught itself in a deadlock. Someone needs to step in from the outside to stop it. Stock holders can't - they are largely part of the problem. So the government will have to, but it won't because they're all bought, corrupt and incompetent.
So it's going to end as it always does. It will continue until it becomes so unbearable that the whole system needs to change and people die. In arbitrary order.
It's been long overdue that we replace mindless jobs with robots. There are so many jobs out there that should not be done by human beings.
The main reason it hasn't happened is that we cling to this outdated model of having to work for a living. Just for the moment make one step away from the hyper-competitiveness we've all been brainwashed into. Consider the productive output of your country to be a team result. (funny how "teamwork" is en vogue when it comes to producing something, but not when discussing the profits from it). Now consider the crazy idea of distributing the profit, or let's say half of the profit, among everyone in the country simply as a way to say that all of us in one way or the other contributed to it. Let the filthy rich keep the other half, fine with me, we don't have to put them up against a wall.
Imagine (to quote Lennon) if everyone in western countries were given a small income by the government, simply for existing. No conditions. Maybe you are working somewhere, maybe you are an artist, maybe you just make people happy around you, maybe you are taking care of a home and children. It doesn't matter, one way or the other, you are contributing to society.
If people had enough to survive, they would not be so willing to do mindless jobs for tiny money. Companies that rely on shit jobs would be faced with two choices: Pay enough for them to make it interesting for people to take the job, or replace them with machines. The amount of innovation this pressure would generate, can you imagine?
Let McD replace workers with robots. I'm sure 90% of the jobs there can be automated and it would be better for humanity if they would. A thinking, feeling being should not flip burgers for eight hours a day.
While not allowing "common" passwords is not the worse idea, in general the more password rules you make, the worse passwords you'll get. In the end people end up writing them on post-it notes...
Not if you are smart about it. Yes, if you just add rules, this is what will happen. Been there, given speeches about it. But if you adopt a few good rules, you can actually improve password security a lot.
And not allowing 123456 as a password is such an obvious step, I wonder it took so long. Don't they hire anyone with a brain at Mickeysoft?
But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
There was a time when Microsoft was in the IBM "no one ever got fired for buying..." position.
Now we have statements like this in (more or less) mainstream press, not just techie circles. That's a long way to fall, when having Microsoft on your CV is held against you.
I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between we-don't-live-in-the-jungle-so-no-you-can-not-do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want and slavery.
Also, corporations cannot be made into slaves. They already are - they are owned by others and can be bought and sold, and their children the same.
Another fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Apple is a hardware company, a media company. It's not a software company or an Internet company. It has little incentive to invest in AI research. It can happily sit this one out and simply buy whatever startup comes up with something promising.
especially given Microsoft's motivation to maintain at least a foothold in mobile.
Which they've been doing for the past what, 20 years? Look what came from it!
Depending on your metabolism, bla bla bla...
The essence is: If you have a normal life cycle, breakfast means you haven't eaten anything for the past 10 hours, and probably it's not a bad idea to give your body some energy.
Of course, if you're eating for three already, like most overweight people, you can just as well skip three days to burn some fat.
I am pointing out the stupidity of the GPs point by exaggerating it so it becomes clear just how crazy the demand to do business in whatever way he wants to is. It's called reductio ad absurdum.