How about putting l33t speak in between random characters. That way, you get your entropy up, but a part of the password is still relatively easy to remember.
Or, create a dictionary of small random character "words" and create passphrases from this set.
A good smartphone does most of that, without having to carry a second device.
Where it doesn't, i.e. you need the larger screen, is where tablets fit in, but the uses cases for that are so incredibly limited it's rare enough as it were. Compound that to the cost-benefit calculation of having to carry yet a second (larger) device veresus having a smaller screen, and tablets become irrelevant very quickly.
I think a lot of people are buying one to have one, because there's a lot of buzz, and a lot of people are envisioning all the new possible things they can do with it. But I think once they start using it, they'll realize the drawbacks are not worth the benefits.
Since we're all on anecdotes here anyway, I have my own to offer up. I used to see the occasional tablet on the train. They weren't so rare that I never saw one, nor so common as the phone. But these days, I don't see anyone riding the train with one. I still see phones, along with the occasional handheld gaming systems (PSP, DS), and e-readers, but no tablets.
And I haven't seen anyone pull one out for anything as casual as looking up a restaurant or definition of something. For this, people use phones. The use cases of a tablet tend to be closer to the use case of a netbook/small laptop. And even so, people tend to take out their phones, so the more accurate statement may be that the use case for tablets are the same as the much narrower use cases for netbooks and laptops.
Stealing is using your taxes to pay for a bridge to nowhere (or several). Stealing is using your taxes to pay for body scanners that nobody wants to go through, is harmful, and doesn't actually do any good. Stealing is taking away from the public domain.
Stealing is not using taxes to maintain social order, provide social services, and promote individual well-being. A national healthcare system is as much stealing as a national interstate system. As long as everybody gets the same level of treatment irrespective of wealth, race, or sex, it's not stealing. It's only stealing when certain specific individuals get special treatment, e.g. when a celebrity gets a private room in a hospital on government money while everyone else gets a shared room.
A good healthcare system is as beneficial as a good police force. Their purpose is the same: to maintain social order. Death by murder is not that different from death by disease. Being robbed of all your money at gunpoint is not that different from going bankrupt from medical bills. The unease of living in a high-crime neighborhood is not so different from the unease of having to foot a large medical bill.
Yes, there should be a line drawn somewhere between the treatments that a healthcare system should provide, and the treatments that the individual should provide. This line should be tied to what comes about as a result of a personal choice, and what comes about as a result of random acts of the Creator.
But as things stand, we can't even have that debate yet, because there is no such system to talk about. As it is now, everybody has to provide for themselves. Sure, the very poor have insurance (that we subsudize doubly, because providers both charge more to make up for the pittance they get from Medicaid/Medicare, despite us already funding it through taxes), but what's defined as the "very poor" does not allow for upwards mobility. Eligibility isn't tied to income, but instead to net worth (which includes savings), which means the choice is either to stay at the bottom or to tough it out and try to move up and lose all government protection.
It's like the wild west all over again, but worse. Those who can afford a bodyguard pay for one. Those who cannot are on their own. And only those who are permanently crippled can access the sheriff.
I was with you until you started differenciating people.
I think the important thing Microsoft and a lot of others have failed (yourself included) to realize is that it isn't about who does what with their computing device. It's which computing device does what.
As you've stated yourself, fancy, overly simplistic UI like Metro and Unity are good for a certain usage pattern, e.g. entertainment. Complex UI are good for being productive. The thing is, not everybody's trying to be productive with every computer they own. And not every computer a person uses will be for purely entertainment purposes.
That's where these new interfaces are going wrong. The desktop is not, and will never be used in the same way as the smart phone. Even consoles (and media PCs) and desktops serve a different purpose. And tablets will never be used quite the same way either.
The UI of each type of device needs to be tailored to the preferred usage pattern, not the other way around. You can't force desktops into the tablet paradigm, because desktops serve a different purpose than a tablet, not to mention that there'd be nothing to replace the desktop's original purpose if it was repurposed to be used like a tablet.
Not recognizing this is a fundamental error on the part of the UI designers and decision makers. Any form of "unified" interface is doomed to failure, in the same way that Windows Mobile and Windows Tablet Edition failed for in trying to put a desktop UI on a smaller form factor.
I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between what you can express, and how to express it.
Most languages can express the same things, as long as they're Turing complete. In fact, that's the definition of Turing completeness. Of course, not all languages are Turing complete, so those that aren't won't be able to express everything that a Turing complete language will be able to express.
Most of the differenciation between languages is how they express certain things. Sure, the same work software written in a functional programming language, say Haskell, does can be done in C++ with recursion and clever template usage. The real difference is in the complexity of the C++ code, vs. the complexity of the Haskell code. In Haskell, everything's done under the hood, so to speak, so that the programmer is presented with a clean, neat language to read and write. Lacking this ability to hide the intricacies under the hood, the C++ code that does the same thing, would neither be clean nor neat.
What separates Haskell and C++ is the ease of expression for certain constructs. Some constructs are easier in C++, some are easier in Haskell. That's the real difference between all turing complete programming languages, and why there are so many different languages out there.
Imagine if that asteroid turned out to actually be on an collision course, and various space-capable countries started playing three-way pong with the asteroid to see which ocean they could make it fall into.
Giving control of DNS to a U.N. organization is not a bad idea, actually. The U.N. is known for its inability to do anything, precisely because there are so many stakeholders involved. The countries squabble over all sorts of things (look at Syria), and in the end, it's just a lot of talk and very little action.
Inactivity is the best way to keep countries from shutting down parts of the Internet. Libertarianism does have its merits, just not necessarily in tangibles (i.e. information).
Fast becoming??? Where have you been for the last 20 years? Under a rock somewhere?
The U.S. has always been a bully. From Iran and Iraq to Brazil and Bolivia, it has always stuck its hands, nose, and sometimes more nefarious parts into other countries' businesses.
Countries have hated us since the end of WWII. You're probably only just noticing this bcause we've just about finished spending all of the political capital we amassed during the Cold War. Where before, countries will sit there quietly and take it because of their greater fear of the U.S.S.R, now there's a backlash.
This is where you're wrong. The justice system isn't meant to dole out punishment. It's meant to deliver justice. That's why we have (what's supposed to be) impartial judges and a jury of our peers.
Punishment is the result of the justice system, but it's not the purpose. The purpose of the justice system is to right the wrongs of society. It is to identify the elements in society that need fixing and to fix it.
You set rules to put a value on each criminal act (robbery will cost you 5 years). It doesn't prohibit the act, but discourages it. No sane, productive member of society would want to risk 5 years of life just for a few hundred bucks or less. You permanently lock away the most henious criminals not because the crime they committed is henious, but because they will continue to pose a danger to the rest of society. It is unfortunate, but necessary.
What you advocate--the death penalty, lengthy prison terms--is vengance, not justice. It is because of your mentality that the justice system is becoming more of a vehicle for revenge than for any actual justice. Vengence helps no one and only hurts society. It makes criminals, and encourages crime. Because hey, if you're going to do 20 years for stealing some passwords or credit cards for fun, might as well go rape and kill and go wild before you get caught.
The system is failing those who need it most because of people like you, who think like you do. I do not want to be around to see it collapse completely.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, the Mayan calendar finishes you!
What happens when it expires?
How about putting l33t speak in between random characters. That way, you get your entropy up, but a part of the password is still relatively easy to remember.
Or, create a dictionary of small random character "words" and create passphrases from this set.
sends the ship Where No One Wants To Go.
Uranus?
A good smartphone does most of that, without having to carry a second device.
Where it doesn't, i.e. you need the larger screen, is where tablets fit in, but the uses cases for that are so incredibly limited it's rare enough as it were. Compound that to the cost-benefit calculation of having to carry yet a second (larger) device veresus having a smaller screen, and tablets become irrelevant very quickly.
I think a lot of people are buying one to have one, because there's a lot of buzz, and a lot of people are envisioning all the new possible things they can do with it. But I think once they start using it, they'll realize the drawbacks are not worth the benefits.
Since we're all on anecdotes here anyway, I have my own to offer up. I used to see the occasional tablet on the train. They weren't so rare that I never saw one, nor so common as the phone. But these days, I don't see anyone riding the train with one. I still see phones, along with the occasional handheld gaming systems (PSP, DS), and e-readers, but no tablets.
And I haven't seen anyone pull one out for anything as casual as looking up a restaurant or definition of something. For this, people use phones. The use cases of a tablet tend to be closer to the use case of a netbook/small laptop. And even so, people tend to take out their phones, so the more accurate statement may be that the use case for tablets are the same as the much narrower use cases for netbooks and laptops.
Stealing is using your taxes to pay for a bridge to nowhere (or several). Stealing is using your taxes to pay for body scanners that nobody wants to go through, is harmful, and doesn't actually do any good. Stealing is taking away from the public domain.
Stealing is not using taxes to maintain social order, provide social services, and promote individual well-being. A national healthcare system is as much stealing as a national interstate system. As long as everybody gets the same level of treatment irrespective of wealth, race, or sex, it's not stealing. It's only stealing when certain specific individuals get special treatment, e.g. when a celebrity gets a private room in a hospital on government money while everyone else gets a shared room.
A good healthcare system is as beneficial as a good police force. Their purpose is the same: to maintain social order. Death by murder is not that different from death by disease. Being robbed of all your money at gunpoint is not that different from going bankrupt from medical bills. The unease of living in a high-crime neighborhood is not so different from the unease of having to foot a large medical bill.
Yes, there should be a line drawn somewhere between the treatments that a healthcare system should provide, and the treatments that the individual should provide. This line should be tied to what comes about as a result of a personal choice, and what comes about as a result of random acts of the Creator.
But as things stand, we can't even have that debate yet, because there is no such system to talk about. As it is now, everybody has to provide for themselves. Sure, the very poor have insurance (that we subsudize doubly, because providers both charge more to make up for the pittance they get from Medicaid/Medicare, despite us already funding it through taxes), but what's defined as the "very poor" does not allow for upwards mobility. Eligibility isn't tied to income, but instead to net worth (which includes savings), which means the choice is either to stay at the bottom or to tough it out and try to move up and lose all government protection.
It's like the wild west all over again, but worse. Those who can afford a bodyguard pay for one. Those who cannot are on their own. And only those who are permanently crippled can access the sheriff.
it is a perfectly legal activity
Until a state passes a law that makes it illegal.
I was with you until you started differenciating people.
I think the important thing Microsoft and a lot of others have failed (yourself included) to realize is that it isn't about who does what with their computing device. It's which computing device does what.
As you've stated yourself, fancy, overly simplistic UI like Metro and Unity are good for a certain usage pattern, e.g. entertainment. Complex UI are good for being productive. The thing is, not everybody's trying to be productive with every computer they own. And not every computer a person uses will be for purely entertainment purposes.
That's where these new interfaces are going wrong. The desktop is not, and will never be used in the same way as the smart phone. Even consoles (and media PCs) and desktops serve a different purpose. And tablets will never be used quite the same way either.
The UI of each type of device needs to be tailored to the preferred usage pattern, not the other way around. You can't force desktops into the tablet paradigm, because desktops serve a different purpose than a tablet, not to mention that there'd be nothing to replace the desktop's original purpose if it was repurposed to be used like a tablet.
Not recognizing this is a fundamental error on the part of the UI designers and decision makers. Any form of "unified" interface is doomed to failure, in the same way that Windows Mobile and Windows Tablet Edition failed for in trying to put a desktop UI on a smaller form factor.
The only problem is what to do with all the excess electricity these things will produce.
I'd hardly call that a problem.
if Baen continues to do well eventually the big publishers will legislate them out of business.
FTFY.
I have a friend in his 50ties
Did he get smothered by his ties?
Not to mention that you'd be down one iPad.
EVERYBODY wants a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
FTFY.
The phone in your hand is probably better.
Just sayin'.
Sounds insidious.
Make a (desktop) monitor using that display, and I'd be down for 4.
I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between what you can express, and how to express it.
Most languages can express the same things, as long as they're Turing complete. In fact, that's the definition of Turing completeness. Of course, not all languages are Turing complete, so those that aren't won't be able to express everything that a Turing complete language will be able to express.
Most of the differenciation between languages is how they express certain things. Sure, the same work software written in a functional programming language, say Haskell, does can be done in C++ with recursion and clever template usage. The real difference is in the complexity of the C++ code, vs. the complexity of the Haskell code. In Haskell, everything's done under the hood, so to speak, so that the programmer is presented with a clean, neat language to read and write. Lacking this ability to hide the intricacies under the hood, the C++ code that does the same thing, would neither be clean nor neat.
What separates Haskell and C++ is the ease of expression for certain constructs. Some constructs are easier in C++, some are easier in Haskell. That's the real difference between all turing complete programming languages, and why there are so many different languages out there.
Not sure exactly what you're preaching, but it sounds really mysterious.
Imagine if that asteroid turned out to actually be on an collision course, and various space-capable countries started playing three-way pong with the asteroid to see which ocean they could make it fall into.
Now that's taking procrastination to a whole new level.
My only fear is what the Chinese are going to do with their right to control your use of toilet paper.
I thought that's why we grow so much corn.
Giving control of DNS to a U.N. organization is not a bad idea, actually. The U.N. is known for its inability to do anything, precisely because there are so many stakeholders involved. The countries squabble over all sorts of things (look at Syria), and in the end, it's just a lot of talk and very little action.
Inactivity is the best way to keep countries from shutting down parts of the Internet. Libertarianism does have its merits, just not necessarily in tangibles (i.e. information).
Fast becoming??? Where have you been for the last 20 years? Under a rock somewhere?
The U.S. has always been a bully. From Iran and Iraq to Brazil and Bolivia, it has always stuck its hands, nose, and sometimes more nefarious parts into other countries' businesses.
Countries have hated us since the end of WWII. You're probably only just noticing this bcause we've just about finished spending all of the political capital we amassed during the Cold War. Where before, countries will sit there quietly and take it because of their greater fear of the U.S.S.R, now there's a backlash.
Then that's a no-brainer. IBM's profits all go to that subsidiary.
This is where you're wrong. The justice system isn't meant to dole out punishment. It's meant to deliver justice. That's why we have (what's supposed to be) impartial judges and a jury of our peers.
Punishment is the result of the justice system, but it's not the purpose. The purpose of the justice system is to right the wrongs of society. It is to identify the elements in society that need fixing and to fix it.
You set rules to put a value on each criminal act (robbery will cost you 5 years). It doesn't prohibit the act, but discourages it. No sane, productive member of society would want to risk 5 years of life just for a few hundred bucks or less. You permanently lock away the most henious criminals not because the crime they committed is henious, but because they will continue to pose a danger to the rest of society. It is unfortunate, but necessary.
What you advocate--the death penalty, lengthy prison terms--is vengance, not justice. It is because of your mentality that the justice system is becoming more of a vehicle for revenge than for any actual justice. Vengence helps no one and only hurts society. It makes criminals, and encourages crime. Because hey, if you're going to do 20 years for stealing some passwords or credit cards for fun, might as well go rape and kill and go wild before you get caught.
The system is failing those who need it most because of people like you, who think like you do. I do not want to be around to see it collapse completely.