We dropped everything Comcast related except internet a year ago and have been happily using Netflix, Hulu, and Vonage ever since. If we can no longer stream or use VoIP (or the costs to do so become prohibitive) I'll just disable streaming on my Netflix account, up my DVD count to do everything via mail, and drop the land-line (just use cells). I will NEVER go back to Comcast for TV/Movies.
If it means I end up watching less TV then is that really a bad thing? I'll just spend my time on things more worthwhile.
As we come to understand more and more about neurology and genetic, an increasing amount of studies on human obesity are shifting from a genetic focus to a neurological focus.
He admits that he started his study expecting to head down the road of genetics. But he found the research and data kept pointing him to the brain instead. One interesting tidbit from his research: They did a study where they had a group of people, some overweight and some normal weight, and asked each person to identify their favorite snack or dessert. They would then place each person individually in a room with large portions of their favorite food. What they found was that everybody, upon seeing their favorite snack/dessert, had the same neurological response (endorphin-like response). But what was interesting was that for those who weren't overweight this response ended after they ate enough to be filled. For those who were overweight, they found that the brain didn't stop producing this response until the food was completely gone.
Dr. Kessler, as well as many more scientists, are starting to focus more on obesity from a sociological and behavioral angle than a genetic angle. He keeps mentioning how obesity has more to do with the relationship people have with food than anything else (and focuses a lot on what kind of relationship we are teaching our children to have with food).
Of course, genetics are still important. But not as much as we've initially thought it to be.
It's not exactly rigorous, but it gets the main points across.
If by "not exactly rigorous" you mean "assuming that all alien species are bigoted supremacists" then yes, it's not "exactly rigorous".
Take this tidbit:
Put your personal feelings aside here: Do not look an alien race in the eyes (eyes?) and tell them the universe was created for us. A good number of scientists believe this might be the "ultimate" cosmic IQ test: The by which all alien races measure self-awareness. Do you personally believe we were crafted by a Creator? Well suck it up for ten minutes and draw something, like above, showing an increase in complexity resulting in human being. Don't fail the cosmic citizenship test for our entire species, okay?
So let me get this right, an alien species that has managed to get their own species to work well enough together to master space travel comes to earth, picks one person, and decides to make a hasty generalization about an entire species off of their interaction with that person? Furthermore, this alien species seems intent on determining the IQ of a species based solely on whether or not any have spiritual or religious beliefs?
I know it's easy/popular to say that all religious/spiritual people are idiots or just delusional, but it's disrespectful, untrue, and generally mean-spirited. It's also easy to say that all atheists or non-religious people are heathens or sinners, but that is also disrespectful, untrue, and generally mean-spirited.
Are we really that intolerant of others beliefs or views that the thought of another sentient species who has progressed far beyond us having at least the same amount of tolerance towards others is unfathomable?
No wonder so much of humanity's potential goes largely untapped.
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
One would think that but......
It looks as though you have yet to have the pleasure to live in a place with a home owner's association (HOA). If you get the wrong people in a HOA or you'll end up with crazy by-laws. You may think that "you'll just stand up to them" but you'll quickly realize that it's not worth the fight considering they can do things like put a lean on your home or take you to court and spend your own home owner dues to prosecute you. Combine this with the general legal craziness that is common in California and HOAs can be horrible.
If home values ever go back up and we move, finding a location without a HOA will be high on the priority list. I see no reason for a HOA as long as there are reasonable county laws. It's just an extra layer of bureaucracy that is often wielded by power-hungry disgruntled neighbors out to make sure the neighborhood looks and sounds just the way they like it.
Following the long tradition of bottling and distributing a substance already readily available to the general public, the bottled water industry has extended their supply chains to include the highly demanded Lunar water.
would cut power to the engine if both pedals were pressed
So anyone who starts from a stop on a steep incline by slowly depressing the brake while simultaneously pressing the gas to avoid rolling back into the vehicle behind them will now stall their vehicle?
The accidents that have occurred as a result of this are tragic. But adding quirky behavior as a stop-gap measure seems ridiculous and sets a bad precedent. Is there anything out there to make sure vehicle behavior is reasonably consistent across different vehicles (or even vehicle firmware versions)? Or are we going to have to be aware of all the different firmware ins and outs between different models and firmware versions.
I've been especially surprised at the fact that so many people seem to think that sudden acceleration is unstoppable. If you're driving a vehicle that suddenly accelerates and you cannot prevent the acceleration PUT THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL OR DOWNSHIFT (and yes you can downshift with automatics)! How people can get their driver's license while thinking the only way to slow/stop a vehicle is to press the brake is beyond me. I know panic can set in and can make reacting to unexpected dangerous situations difficult, but isn't that why you had a learner's permit first? My father took me to an empty lot and had me practice reacting to different situations that you can encounter which can be dangerous if you panic (ie: sliding, hydroplaning, slamming on brakes, etc.). Perhaps drivers education courses should focus more on these kinds of situations rather than merely how to obey traffic laws.
About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.
To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?
Either way, we don't need rockets and fuel to deorbit satellites. We need cheap, reliable, low-mass, devices incorporated into payloads which can create a constant low-thrust for long periods of time. We don't need deorbits to be quick, we just need them to be predictable and fast enough to make way for new launches.
I've found that self-taught programmers can actually be quite productive. However I've noticed (in general) the following deficiencies which I think are both rooted in the fact that the need to memorize seemingly arbitrary facts about a system is inversely proportional to deepness of understanding of that system (see graph):
-Design Patterns (noted earlier by others): There is a tendency of self-taught programmers to follow a design pattern more doggedly than others. This can be tied back to the fact that for the self-taught a particular design pattern represents what programming is to them. They memorize a series of facts that support the design pattern they use rather than understand the nature of a design pattern itself. They tend to have steeper learning curves when presented with new structures and design patterns because using a new design pattern requires the abandonment of the facts they've memorized and starting anew with memorizing a new set of facts.
-Adaptability: Self-taught programmers tend to reach a certain level of comfortableness with technology (ie: languages/libraries/etc.) and attach themselves to it. The thought of using a different language, library, or system is daunting (or even aggressively resisted) since, again, changing requires a new memorization of facts around the technologies (see graph).
Much of what you should learn formally from a CS degree is WHAT a programming language is or WHAT a design pattern is, not merely HOW to program or HOW to use a particular design pattern.
That said, there's nothing stopping a self-taught individual from learning these things on their own. It's just that when you're teaching yourself a trade you, naturally, immediately (and sometimes exclusively) focus on things that allow you to compete on a particular level or with a particular technology. Learning design patterns or what programming is in the abstract doesn't seem to have an immediate payoff (clients aren't going to ask you about those things). But they are skills which allow you to be competitive across technologies or design patterns which is especially important in the rapidly changing world of computers.
than any other cell phone? i know more than a few people who have done this with more than a few different brands of phone.
I'll chop on this.
It is different because the iPhone is a status symbol first and a phone second. Thus when a new model comes out the primary function of owning an iPhone (status) is eliminated leaving you merely with a phone (gasp). In order to retain the primary reason for owning an iPhone, customers must either buy a new phone more frequently than their contract allows them to (huge cost) or commit fraud (which is what seems to be the choice people are making).
And yes, I'm not an Apple fan. I have a love-hate relationship with Apple users. I hate them and they love themselves.
We dumped cable TV/Tivo over a year ago and now get all of our movies and TV programming via the internet (over the internet connection the cable company provides) or Netflix/Redbox . The best way to cancel to avoid much of the hassle in canceling cable services is to pack everything up (which you'd have to do anyways) but instead of mailing it in (giving them free-reign to claim you didn't send something) drive down to their offices and plop all of the equipment on a customer service rep's desk. They have no way to rebuttal against you since they'd have to tell you to pack everything back up and set it up again and they have no way to "claim" you lost something since they have to give you a receipt right there.
BTW, I don't miss cable TV one bit and haven't run into bandwidth issues because we don't watch TV all day.
My junior year there was a CS lab that was particularly tough at the end of the semester. I turned it in (a few days late) but managed to complete it (first true all-nighter I pulled in school). I was taking the final in the CS labs (they put 6 bugs into your program and you had to find and fix them) and a student next to me was escorted out into the hallway where the dean, a sysadmin, and another student were waiting for him.
Apparently, he couldn't pass the course unless he turned in that lab on time. So, when a student next to him got up to get a course TA to verify his program (without locking his screen), this student scp'ed a copy of the student's program over to his account. But he didn't stop there, he then deleted this students program and replaced it with a copy of his incomplete program.
The student whose program was stolen met up with the sysadmins and they were able to determine what happened by looking at logs.
Needless to say, the student cheating was expelled.
A 3-dimensional player would have been nice. All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.
Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.
Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.
Can we please have more IMB-like ethereal commercials showcasing how Linux is growing and is ultimately unstoppable because it represents the collective knowledge of the world?
The "but [insert mega corporation name here] requires IE 6 for internal tools" excuse is now nothing more than an excuse and is not sound a business decision. The official EOL for IE 6 is July of this year. Any company that has tools that that they wish to run on a browser supported by its vendor (to say nothing of security issues) should have either already created a new version that supports newer browsers or should be actively developing one.
A corporate app that requires an EOL'ed browser is either not important enough to the company for them to invest in basic ongoing maintenance or is so poorly written/understood that nobody dares to touch it.
it should be clarified that this is what *some* Christian fundamentalists believe
Why is it that online discussions always seem to jump straight to hasty generalizations? Is Slashdot really just full of 14 year olds or are we really that intolerant of each other?
Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.
...as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7%, while his secretary is taxed at 30%.
Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X%.
This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out). If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.
Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler. Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.
"id2$o6pwiW" is MUCH more secure than "workout123"
Why? On what do you base that conclusion?
The fact that it contains: 1) lower case letter(s) 2) upper case letter(s) 3) number(s) 4) symbol(s) 5) does not contain word(s) 6) is not an abbreviation of a common phrase
Am I missing another set of criteria for secure passwords?
I often wonder how much stronger passwords could be if the word "password" wasn't used to describe them and wasn't what users thought of when coming up with login credentials. You can solve many weak password issues if you train your users that they are creating a "passphrase" NOT a "password". A way to do this (that's easy for users):
1) Think of a phrase that you can memorise but is unique to you (ie: not common or easily guessable). Bonus if guessing that phrase would require intimate knowledge about you. 2) Take the first letter of each word (bonus points if you take second, or third, etc.) 3) Replace some of the letters with numbers/capitals/symbols (ie: cipher it)
So, for example: 1) "I do two sets of six pushups when I workout" 2) idtsospwiw 3) id2$o6pwiW
It will take entering it several times to develop the coordination until entering this becomes natural, so practising it on the keyboard is a good idea. But "id2$o6pwiW" is MUCH more secure than "workout123" and it is something that can be easily memorised since they're really just memorising "I do two sets of six pushups when I workout" (which is something they already know) plus the minor tweaking of the characters they are entering.
Slashdot Mirror
We dropped everything Comcast related except internet a year ago and have been happily using Netflix, Hulu, and Vonage ever since. If we can no longer stream or use VoIP (or the costs to do so become prohibitive) I'll just disable streaming on my Netflix account, up my DVD count to do everything via mail, and drop the land-line (just use cells). I will NEVER go back to Comcast for TV/Movies.
If it means I end up watching less TV then is that really a bad thing? I'll just spend my time on things more worthwhile.
I tried to watch this trial online, but my ISP said I had to pay extra to be able to watch it.
As we come to understand more and more about neurology and genetic, an increasing amount of studies on human obesity are shifting from a genetic focus to a neurological focus.
Dr. David Kessler, former FDA commissioner and someone who has struggled with weight in his own life, has an excellent book out called The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. NPR has done some very good interviews with him.
He admits that he started his study expecting to head down the road of genetics. But he found the research and data kept pointing him to the brain instead. One interesting tidbit from his research: They did a study where they had a group of people, some overweight and some normal weight, and asked each person to identify their favorite snack or dessert. They would then place each person individually in a room with large portions of their favorite food. What they found was that everybody, upon seeing their favorite snack/dessert, had the same neurological response (endorphin-like response). But what was interesting was that for those who weren't overweight this response ended after they ate enough to be filled. For those who were overweight, they found that the brain didn't stop producing this response until the food was completely gone.
Dr. Kessler, as well as many more scientists, are starting to focus more on obesity from a sociological and behavioral angle than a genetic angle. He keeps mentioning how obesity has more to do with the relationship people have with food than anything else (and focuses a lot on what kind of relationship we are teaching our children to have with food).
Of course, genetics are still important. But not as much as we've initially thought it to be.
It's not exactly rigorous, but it gets the main points across.
If by "not exactly rigorous" you mean "assuming that all alien species are bigoted supremacists" then yes, it's not "exactly rigorous".
Take this tidbit:
Put your personal feelings aside here: Do not look an alien race in the eyes (eyes?) and tell them the universe was created for us. A good number of scientists believe this might be the "ultimate" cosmic IQ test: The by which all alien races measure self-awareness. Do you personally believe we were crafted by a Creator? Well suck it up for ten minutes and draw something, like above, showing an increase in complexity resulting in human being. Don't fail the cosmic citizenship test for our entire species, okay?
So let me get this right, an alien species that has managed to get their own species to work well enough together to master space travel comes to earth, picks one person, and decides to make a hasty generalization about an entire species off of their interaction with that person? Furthermore, this alien species seems intent on determining the IQ of a species based solely on whether or not any have spiritual or religious beliefs?
I know it's easy/popular to say that all religious/spiritual people are idiots or just delusional, but it's disrespectful, untrue, and generally mean-spirited. It's also easy to say that all atheists or non-religious people are heathens or sinners, but that is also disrespectful, untrue, and generally mean-spirited.
Are we really that intolerant of others beliefs or views that the thought of another sentient species who has progressed far beyond us having at least the same amount of tolerance towards others is unfathomable?
No wonder so much of humanity's potential goes largely untapped.
This is good news. Check out their webcam.
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
One would think that but......
It looks as though you have yet to have the pleasure to live in a place with a home owner's association (HOA). If you get the wrong people in a HOA or you'll end up with crazy by-laws. You may think that "you'll just stand up to them" but you'll quickly realize that it's not worth the fight considering they can do things like put a lean on your home or take you to court and spend your own home owner dues to prosecute you. Combine this with the general legal craziness that is common in California and HOAs can be horrible.
If home values ever go back up and we move, finding a location without a HOA will be high on the priority list. I see no reason for a HOA as long as there are reasonable county laws. It's just an extra layer of bureaucracy that is often wielded by power-hungry disgruntled neighbors out to make sure the neighborhood looks and sounds just the way they like it.
Following the long tradition of bottling and distributing a substance already readily available to the general public, the bottled water industry has extended their supply chains to include the highly demanded Lunar water.
would cut power to the engine if both pedals were pressed
So anyone who starts from a stop on a steep incline by slowly depressing the brake while simultaneously pressing the gas to avoid rolling back into the vehicle behind them will now stall their vehicle?
The accidents that have occurred as a result of this are tragic. But adding quirky behavior as a stop-gap measure seems ridiculous and sets a bad precedent. Is there anything out there to make sure vehicle behavior is reasonably consistent across different vehicles (or even vehicle firmware versions)? Or are we going to have to be aware of all the different firmware ins and outs between different models and firmware versions.
I've been especially surprised at the fact that so many people seem to think that sudden acceleration is unstoppable. If you're driving a vehicle that suddenly accelerates and you cannot prevent the acceleration PUT THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL OR DOWNSHIFT (and yes you can downshift with automatics)! How people can get their driver's license while thinking the only way to slow/stop a vehicle is to press the brake is beyond me. I know panic can set in and can make reacting to unexpected dangerous situations difficult, but isn't that why you had a learner's permit first? My father took me to an empty lot and had me practice reacting to different situations that you can encounter which can be dangerous if you panic (ie: sliding, hydroplaning, slamming on brakes, etc.). Perhaps drivers education courses should focus more on these kinds of situations rather than merely how to obey traffic laws.
letting you turn those movie performance predictions into real dollars
I thought that's what I was doing every time I chose to buy or not to buy a movie ticket (or rental).
About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.
To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?
Either way, we don't need rockets and fuel to deorbit satellites. We need cheap, reliable, low-mass, devices incorporated into payloads which can create a constant low-thrust for long periods of time. We don't need deorbits to be quick, we just need them to be predictable and fast enough to make way for new launches.
I've found that self-taught programmers can actually be quite productive. However I've noticed (in general) the following deficiencies which I think are both rooted in the fact that the need to memorize seemingly arbitrary facts about a system is inversely proportional to deepness of understanding of that system (see graph):
-Design Patterns (noted earlier by others): There is a tendency of self-taught programmers to follow a design pattern more doggedly than others. This can be tied back to the fact that for the self-taught a particular design pattern represents what programming is to them. They memorize a series of facts that support the design pattern they use rather than understand the nature of a design pattern itself. They tend to have steeper learning curves when presented with new structures and design patterns because using a new design pattern requires the abandonment of the facts they've memorized and starting anew with memorizing a new set of facts.
-Adaptability: Self-taught programmers tend to reach a certain level of comfortableness with technology (ie: languages/libraries/etc.) and attach themselves to it. The thought of using a different language, library, or system is daunting (or even aggressively resisted) since, again, changing requires a new memorization of facts around the technologies (see graph).
Much of what you should learn formally from a CS degree is WHAT a programming language is or WHAT a design pattern is, not merely HOW to program or HOW to use a particular design pattern.
That said, there's nothing stopping a self-taught individual from learning these things on their own. It's just that when you're teaching yourself a trade you, naturally, immediately (and sometimes exclusively) focus on things that allow you to compete on a particular level or with a particular technology. Learning design patterns or what programming is in the abstract doesn't seem to have an immediate payoff (clients aren't going to ask you about those things). But they are skills which allow you to be competitive across technologies or design patterns which is especially important in the rapidly changing world of computers.
than any other cell phone? i know more than a few people who have done this with more than a few different brands of phone.
I'll chop on this.
It is different because the iPhone is a status symbol first and a phone second. Thus when a new model comes out the primary function of owning an iPhone (status) is eliminated leaving you merely with a phone (gasp). In order to retain the primary reason for owning an iPhone, customers must either buy a new phone more frequently than their contract allows them to (huge cost) or commit fraud (which is what seems to be the choice people are making).
And yes, I'm not an Apple fan. I have a love-hate relationship with Apple users. I hate them and they love themselves.
http://xkcd.com/331/
We dumped cable TV/Tivo over a year ago and now get all of our movies and TV programming via the internet (over the internet connection the cable company provides) or Netflix/Redbox . The best way to cancel to avoid much of the hassle in canceling cable services is to pack everything up (which you'd have to do anyways) but instead of mailing it in (giving them free-reign to claim you didn't send something) drive down to their offices and plop all of the equipment on a customer service rep's desk. They have no way to rebuttal against you since they'd have to tell you to pack everything back up and set it up again and they have no way to "claim" you lost something since they have to give you a receipt right there.
BTW, I don't miss cable TV one bit and haven't run into bandwidth issues because we don't watch TV all day.
My junior year there was a CS lab that was particularly tough at the end of the semester. I turned it in (a few days late) but managed to complete it (first true all-nighter I pulled in school). I was taking the final in the CS labs (they put 6 bugs into your program and you had to find and fix them) and a student next to me was escorted out into the hallway where the dean, a sysadmin, and another student were waiting for him.
Apparently, he couldn't pass the course unless he turned in that lab on time. So, when a student next to him got up to get a course TA to verify his program (without locking his screen), this student scp'ed a copy of the student's program over to his account. But he didn't stop there, he then deleted this students program and replaced it with a copy of his incomplete program.
The student whose program was stolen met up with the sysadmins and they were able to determine what happened by looking at logs.
Needless to say, the student cheating was expelled.
A 3-dimensional player would have been nice. All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.
Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.
Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.
Sorry.
Can we please have more IMB-like ethereal commercials showcasing how Linux is growing and is ultimately unstoppable because it represents the collective knowledge of the world?
The "but [insert mega corporation name here] requires IE 6 for internal tools" excuse is now nothing more than an excuse and is not sound a business decision. The official EOL for IE 6 is July of this year. Any company that has tools that that they wish to run on a browser supported by its vendor (to say nothing of security issues) should have either already created a new version that supports newer browsers or should be actively developing one.
A corporate app that requires an EOL'ed browser is either not important enough to the company for them to invest in basic ongoing maintenance or is so poorly written/understood that nobody dares to touch it.
Hmmm.... this would be related now would it?
Google is finalizing an agreement with the National Security Agency to help the search giant ward off cyberattacks, according to the Washington Post.
it should be clarified that this is what *some* Christian fundamentalists believe
Why is it that online discussions always seem to jump straight to hasty generalizations? Is Slashdot really just full of 14 year olds or are we really that intolerant of each other?
Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.
I think Juvenal just sat up in his grave.
Can I borrow your time machine back to cold war?
No you can't. Putin and Bush stole it a long time ago.
...as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7%, while his secretary is taxed at 30%.
Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X%.
This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out). If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.
Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler. Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.
"id2$o6pwiW" is MUCH more secure than "workout123"
Why? On what do you base that conclusion?
The fact that it contains:
1) lower case letter(s)
2) upper case letter(s)
3) number(s)
4) symbol(s)
5) does not contain word(s)
6) is not an abbreviation of a common phrase
Am I missing another set of criteria for secure passwords?
I often wonder how much stronger passwords could be if the word "password" wasn't used to describe them and wasn't what users thought of when coming up with login credentials. You can solve many weak password issues if you train your users that they are creating a "passphrase" NOT a "password". A way to do this (that's easy for users):
1) Think of a phrase that you can memorise but is unique to you (ie: not common or easily guessable). Bonus if guessing that phrase would require intimate knowledge about you.
2) Take the first letter of each word (bonus points if you take second, or third, etc.)
3) Replace some of the letters with numbers/capitals/symbols (ie: cipher it)
So, for example:
1) "I do two sets of six pushups when I workout"
2) idtsospwiw
3) id2$o6pwiW
It will take entering it several times to develop the coordination until entering this becomes natural, so practising it on the keyboard is a good idea. But "id2$o6pwiW" is MUCH more secure than "workout123" and it is something that can be easily memorised since they're really just memorising "I do two sets of six pushups when I workout" (which is something they already know) plus the minor tweaking of the characters they are entering.