Course I did a little wikipedia reading and even the SETI folks say the Drake equation shouldn't really be looked at as a real equation that produces a real result:
Therefore, the SETI League states that the importance of the Drake equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation.[1] It may be more useful to think of it as a series of questions framed as a numbers game.[8][10] The equation is quite useful for its intended application, which is to summarize all the various concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of life elsewhere
> few bother to remember the other side of the equation, which is the conduct of the radicals.
There is one really huge fucking difference between them and the Government. Care to guess what it is?
Are radicals the ones founded upon documents promising the people to respect their rights and leave them secure in their persons and homes excepting by due process and with the authority of courts?
How does the actions of radicals free the government of the very responsibilities that its own founding documents base their very legitimacy on?
Yahoo actually thinks it is "targeted" at "gear heads"? ROTFL
I know some very technical people who have worked AT yahoo. I don't know a single one that actually uses yahoo services (except occasionally for anonymous email accounts) or takes yahoo seriously in any way.
Yahoo is already, and has been for some time, the default home page of non-technical people above the age of 50. If they are looking for a problem with their targeting it is right there in the fact that they don't realize this....this is already their audience.
There was a great talk at the 30th Chaos Computer Congress about this, I was just watching on youtube. The talk is called "Four Wars" and it by a former MI5 whistleblower from the 90s. She makes some good observations, basically....her prediction is this will happen.
The reason being that the war on drugs is no longer useful for the state apparatus. The war on terror replaced it.
Look before the WOT and what do you see? Before the 90s, how often were people's homes raided and why? Where were all the swat teams and justifications for wiretaps? It was drugs, it was drugs for a long time. Drugs was used to both fund and justify so much.
I don't buy this public/private sphere thing. The government is not public, it is instituted for the benefit of large corperations and was always for the benefit of the rich. That crap about it being public was only ever to pacify people.
I don't see where the government, especially this one, needs more revenue, they have plenty. More than enough for what they NEED to do. Just because they waste it on their bloated military and surveillance state doesn't mean they need more, it means they need less until they can show some responsibility.
That said, why are taxes the only possible solution? It just doesn't make sense to me. Why do you insist on a band-aid when organ replacement is called for?
> No-one is so smart and talented that they legitimately "earn" a million dollars an hour.
No shit. Taxes wont fix that. You need to change corperate structures so that they stop leaking from the top. Why should a company get a grant of limited liability from the government if its corperate charter allows for the poeople at the top to make unlimited sums? This doesn't, at all, require new taxes to fix.
Furthermore why should the government grant limited liability to a company whose corperate charter treats the humans who work for them as disposable resources? It doesn't take taxes to raise standards.
They might argue that, and they might have every right to suspend my account for doing so.
However, I don't see how that adds up to a reasonable expectation, especially since this sees no enfocrement whatsoever, that people who like a page actually litterally like it. Any such claim would do little more than display their own ignorance as to how their own service is actually used.
Seeing as there is no enforcement, and it is rather common for people to use the like button other than in this manner, I don't see how this adds up to any implication of consent in the use of my or anyone else's likeness in advertising.
I did not say that; if I had said it, it wouldn't be true. However, I can understand why people would have voted for him the first time around.
Actually, I have never, not once, neither in a federal election nor a local one, ever voted for either a Democrat or Republican candidate; not even for the proverbial "dog catcher"
You have to like a group or product just to be able to post on the page about it and be part of the discussion. So, if I see something I don't like, if I see a product that is a scam or that didn't work as advertised, I can't even post in a group discussing it unless i hit "like"
In short, they took other concepts like "subscribe", conflated them into their "like" button and now are trying to claim that because you hit the button called "like" that you actually like whatever it is.
This would be a little like me replacing my doorbell with a button that says "I love surprise anal sex", and then publishing pictures of everyone who comes to visit me with the slogan "These people love surprise anal sex". Does that really seem legit?
I can think of a reason why this doesn't work.... saying that they have "liked" something contains the implicit assumption that they actually like it....that is...they hit like honestly. I can see why that might be a valid assumption if you are ignoring the details but, the simple fact is, facebook doesn't have a dislike button.
In fact, I personally "liked" Obama's facebook page. Why? Is it because I like him? No. I didn't even vote for him the first time around. I also have "liked" a page by the "Reagan Coalition", is it because I like them? No, not at all.
In both of these cases, I hit "like" because I wanted to keep tabs on them, and I wanted to discuss/argue with/troll other people who actually do like these things. Facebook has no "I don't really like this but I want to be included in the discussion" button.
anyone who has read my posts here knows I don't favor any form of gun control at all. I don't even see why its needed. Yet, I "like" one of the groups that discusses gun control...because I want to be part of the discussion! Believe me, not a single member of that group has any illusions that I "like" what they are trying to do.
So, I agree after a fashion. I would have no issue with this "your friends like..." advertising if there was any reason to actually expect that clicking "like" actually had some meaning that was relevant to the concept it invokes. The simple fact is, this is not true at all.
I don't really believe we can or should tax our way out of the problem. Taxes can do many things but they are not the be all and end all solution to systemic problems. At some point is it not the case that adding more sumps is not the real answer to the boat taking on water.
The thing is, corporations are government chartered. They recieve limited liability in exchange for meeting certain regulations, without which, they would have trouble existing and operating as they do today.
Corperate structures account for far more of the economy than the government. Simply shuttling money up through them isn't the answer, you need to fix the corperate structures to not require as much central redistribution.
Frankly, I think we need to look at funding models and how to create more independent companies that are not beholden to stock markets and venture capital. Companies built around the idea that profits are part of the means by which we do our job and put food on our tables, not the be all and end all target for their own sake.
To use a simple example. A coffee shop should be opened and chartered to provide the community with excellent coffee and atmosphere for social gathering. Profits keep it in business, and keep the owner and workers able to do it, and able to live and enjoy these things like everyone else. It is entirely backwards to look at providing coffee as a means to profit.
I think Luddite-ism is the naive solution to some real issues.
They are right of course, but it is less about technology killing industries; and more about how the benefit of technology is distributed.
For example, if we work together making widgets, and feed our families making them, then I find a way we can make them faster for the same cost, we can do that, and maybe we make the same number of widgets in less time, and reap the benefit of increased time with our families. This is, sadly, not how things work with corperate structures that are singly profit minded.
Under the current paradigm, we make widgets for someone else, we all feed our families, but, if I find a way to make them faster for the same money, you get laid off, and I spend my time making twice as many widgets for the same or only slightly larger pay. I am, of course doing better in relation to you in this scenario, but make no mistake, we are both worst off in the end.
Repeat this over and over, and you have the current situation. Technology has improved, we can do more, and so, less of us are asked to do more work for not more money. Technology isn't really to blame here. Technology is the boon that reduces the requirement for work, it is just that the people who actually do the work get screwed by it, rather than benefit from it
That just says there are sectors that are booming. This shift has left a lot of people behind. what you are ignoring is all the lower skill jobs. Now when I say lower skill, I don't mean McDonalds; I mean any job you could do with a 2-4 year non-technical degree and on the job training.
It used to be, you go to college, prove you can read, write, and take training, and you were almost garaunteed a middle class lifestyle supporting job. The entire economy was based around the plethora of these jobs.
My favorite example is the paralegal. They still exist, yes. However, it used to be a single lawyer with a big case would hire an auditorium full of paralegals just to study case law and review documents. Those days are gone, that job is done by a small handful of people. An entire auditorium reduced to maybe 2-4 people.
That is why you are seeing people with college degrees working at McDonalds and those with less education struggle to get even the shit jobs that they used to be considered "stuck with". We have seen the huge rise of part time, low wage employment.
But yes, our sector is booming and it is great. That is partially because we empower everyone else to hire less people, and use the ones they do hire more efficiently.
You know I agree with the basic premise, but it is also why I am so against war. The thing is it is "see it thru and secure the intended outcome." Intended outcome is the problem: war seldom is any good at securing an intended outcome.
Look at Iraq. Was the "intended outcome" just to kill their dictator? Mission accomplished eh? That is a very shortsighted goal, and by any real measure, Iraqis were better off under their dictator. Just about anything you could look at and say "look how bad things are for them", it got worst with war.
There is an addage that every problem has a simple solution which doesn't work. War really seems to be that solution. Sure, sometimes one is left with little choice; but to steal a line from a movie, it is a broad sword not a scalpel.
War tends to be a piss poor means for achieving meaningful outcomes; and is even counterproductive at many goals. Who cares if you kill a terrorist, if, in doing so, you make his viewpoint seem more reasonable and help recruit 5 more? Intended outcome achieved?
War, with few exceptions, tends to be about the ruling elites using the poor as pawns in their struggles for power and profit. The intended outcomes are generally little more than excuses for this. In that I think the most apt observation has been repeated in the fallout games.... war never changes.
Course, you guys often have it worst over there, but, in Boston today it was quite the opposite. In fact, last I checked it was almost 60 F outside. This morning, the foot of snow we got a few days ago was melting so fast you could actually see the water vapor coming off the piles of snow, it was enough to make it the foggiest commute I have had in what seems like a decade.
Looking at the forcast, we are expecting this snap to hit us and bring it down to 16 tonight. That is one hell of a temp drop!
> Bob knows that none of the "obvious signs" were really there, that everyone made them up to > explain in hindsight what nobody saw coming.
Exactly hindsight is a bitch. I lived with a con artist once. It was impressive the way he manipulated me and everyone I knew. After we kicked his ass to the curb, this weird thing happened. Every person I talked to about it, everyone had noticed something. Something they thought was odd, or something they shrugged off.
It was like telling them the end result, shines the light on the things that are obvious. Like the way he claimed to have spent summers in France and would demonstrate by asking me what time it was in French. I was out of practice but one day I belted back the time in French to him. I could see he didn't get it, so he pretended like he didn't hear me right, so I repeated, but, even as he nodded and smiled, I could tell he had no clue what I said.
Shugged it off.... little things, all these little things that make so much sense together, so much sense in hindsight....but...nobody actually knew until the shoe dropped....then everybody knew.
I have been traveling through time since I was born, forwards, at very large portions of C relative to the third planet from your sun. In fact, I have traveled over 35 years since I was born, its been quite a wild ride.
hmmm Where did you get the idea that I hate hunters? I know hunters, I have no issue with hunting. I just don't really consider shooting at birds which have had their wings clipped and been setup to fly in flocks right in front of you for easy shooting to be "hunting" any more than dropping dynamite in the pond is "fishing".
> For who? Drug dealers? Money launderers? Libertarians with a hate-boner for fiat currencies and the Fed?
Yes, exactly, are you claiming they don't exist? Because they, in fact do, and some of them have some resources; and there are others more than willing to trade from them.
Sure it has issues, even compared to cash but... cash can't be used for online purchases either. I don't think it is a problem if one currency isn't the perfect solution for all problems. Is it really a failure of one currency if it only fills in a niche? Do you really think the niche of providing online transactions to people who are distrustful of other currencies is a failing?
As a niche market, I think bitcoin works pretty well overall and fills in a real gap between cash and traditional bank mediated transactions.
It is a lot of work, however it isn't the "hunter" who does it. The owner of the "hunting ground" is the one who does it and then charges parties to go out and shoot the animals. Lots of paying jobs are work.
and from that article; doesn't talk about that particular incident, but one a couple of years before:
Another less well-known incident occurred two years prior to the Dick Cheney hunting incident when the vice president participated in a canned hunt at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township, Pennsylvania. Cheney and nine companions killed 417 out of 500 ringneck pheasants, of which the Vice President himself is credited with killing 70, and an unknown number of mallard ducks.[8]
What kind of dick uses live animals just as targets and kills more than many families could eat in a single session? Dick Cheney does. Which I mean, I have no problem with animal slaughter for food or clothing but, we don't call people who work in slaughterhouses hunters.
I mostly agree, especially about it being a non-story.
Part of the issue, I think, is conflating a wifi password with other passwords. A wifi password has several properties that set it apart from others.
For one thing, it is usually shared between devices, even ones used by different people (lets ignore advanced schemes, if you are setting up some manner of authentication none of this applies).
Secondly, it is only useful within a small geographic location. A website or email password can be used by someone half the world away. A wifi password is only useful within range of your particular access point.
Thirdly, the exposure is mostly limited. While its true that someone could drive up to your AP and start transmitting child porn, and that could lead to some serious consequences; the real abuses here are only attractive to a limited audience and not something generally useful or generally financially useful.... it doesn't give them access to your accounts, even your email downloads are likely encrypted to him.
Overall, exploiting this is more work than it is worth much of the time, and if it wasn't, it isn't like it is impossible to add more controls. If you really are paranoid, you can always drop wifi devices onto their own segment that can only talk to a VPN endpoint....shit then you can run the wifi passwordless and use the VPN for protection.
3) Don't ask me for Win 8 support. I don't know. I don't want to know. Windows 8 is dead to me:)
My Windows 98 box has been really slow and wont let me download games. Someone said I need to clear my temporary internet files but, I was afraid I would lose all my porn if I did that, since that is where it always downloads to
Slashdot Mirror
Course I did a little wikipedia reading and even the SETI folks say the Drake equation shouldn't really be looked at as a real equation that produces a real result:
> few bother to remember the other side of the equation, which is the conduct of the radicals.
There is one really huge fucking difference between them and the Government. Care to guess what it is?
Are radicals the ones founded upon documents promising the people to respect their rights and leave them secure in their persons and homes excepting by due process and with the authority of courts?
How does the actions of radicals free the government of the very responsibilities that its own founding documents base their very legitimacy on?
Yahoo actually thinks it is "targeted" at "gear heads"? ROTFL
I know some very technical people who have worked AT yahoo. I don't know a single one that actually uses yahoo services (except occasionally for anonymous email accounts) or takes yahoo seriously in any way.
Yahoo is already, and has been for some time, the default home page of non-technical people above the age of 50. If they are looking for a problem with their targeting it is right there in the fact that they don't realize this....this is already their audience.
There was a great talk at the 30th Chaos Computer Congress about this, I was just watching on youtube. The talk is called "Four Wars" and it by a former MI5 whistleblower from the 90s. She makes some good observations, basically....her prediction is this will happen.
The reason being that the war on drugs is no longer useful for the state apparatus. The war on terror replaced it.
Look before the WOT and what do you see? Before the 90s, how often were people's homes raided and why? Where were all the swat teams and justifications for wiretaps? It was drugs, it was drugs for a long time. Drugs was used to both fund and justify so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G81tJI2Pls
I don't buy this public/private sphere thing. The government is not public, it is instituted for the benefit of large corperations and was always for the benefit of the rich. That crap about it being public was only ever to pacify people.
I don't see where the government, especially this one, needs more revenue, they have plenty. More than enough for what they NEED to do. Just because they waste it on their bloated military and surveillance state doesn't mean they need more, it means they need less until they can show some responsibility.
That said, why are taxes the only possible solution? It just doesn't make sense to me. Why do you insist on a band-aid when organ replacement is called for?
> No-one is so smart and talented that they legitimately "earn" a million dollars an hour.
No shit. Taxes wont fix that. You need to change corperate structures so that they stop leaking from the top. Why should a company get a grant of limited liability from the government if its corperate charter allows for the poeople at the top to make unlimited sums? This doesn't, at all, require new taxes to fix.
Furthermore why should the government grant limited liability to a company whose corperate charter treats the humans who work for them as disposable resources? It doesn't take taxes to raise standards.
Except it is not a clearly labeled button, it is a button which has a function far beyond its label.
Fuck facebook and anyone else trying to trick people into giving consent based on fraudulent labels.
They might argue that, and they might have every right to suspend my account for doing so.
However, I don't see how that adds up to a reasonable expectation, especially since this sees no enfocrement whatsoever, that people who like a page actually litterally like it. Any such claim would do little more than display their own ignorance as to how their own service is actually used.
Seeing as there is no enforcement, and it is rather common for people to use the like button other than in this manner, I don't see how this adds up to any implication of consent in the use of my or anyone else's likeness in advertising.
> So you voted for Obama the second time around?
I did not say that; if I had said it, it wouldn't be true. However, I can understand why people would have voted for him the first time around.
Actually, I have never, not once, neither in a federal election nor a local one, ever voted for either a Democrat or Republican candidate; not even for the proverbial "dog catcher"
Except like doesn't always mean like.
You have to like a group or product just to be able to post on the page about it and be part of the discussion. So, if I see something I don't like, if I see a product that is a scam or that didn't work as advertised, I can't even post in a group discussing it unless i hit "like"
In short, they took other concepts like "subscribe", conflated them into their "like" button and now are trying to claim that because you hit the button called "like" that you actually like whatever it is.
This would be a little like me replacing my doorbell with a button that says "I love surprise anal sex", and then publishing pictures of everyone who comes to visit me with the slogan "These people love surprise anal sex". Does that really seem legit?
I can think of a reason why this doesn't work.... saying that they have "liked" something contains the implicit assumption that they actually like it....that is...they hit like honestly. I can see why that might be a valid assumption if you are ignoring the details but, the simple fact is, facebook doesn't have a dislike button.
In fact, I personally "liked" Obama's facebook page. Why? Is it because I like him? No. I didn't even vote for him the first time around. I also have "liked" a page by the "Reagan Coalition", is it because I like them? No, not at all.
In both of these cases, I hit "like" because I wanted to keep tabs on them, and I wanted to discuss/argue with/troll other people who actually do like these things. Facebook has no "I don't really like this but I want to be included in the discussion" button.
anyone who has read my posts here knows I don't favor any form of gun control at all. I don't even see why its needed. Yet, I "like" one of the groups that discusses gun control...because I want to be part of the discussion! Believe me, not a single member of that group has any illusions that I "like" what they are trying to do.
So, I agree after a fashion. I would have no issue with this "your friends like..." advertising if there was any reason to actually expect that clicking "like" actually had some meaning that was relevant to the concept it invokes. The simple fact is, this is not true at all.
I don't really believe we can or should tax our way out of the problem. Taxes can do many things but they are not the be all and end all solution to systemic problems. At some point is it not the case that adding more sumps is not the real answer to the boat taking on water.
The thing is, corporations are government chartered. They recieve limited liability in exchange for meeting certain regulations, without which, they would have trouble existing and operating as they do today.
Corperate structures account for far more of the economy than the government. Simply shuttling money up through them isn't the answer, you need to fix the corperate structures to not require as much central redistribution.
Frankly, I think we need to look at funding models and how to create more independent companies that are not beholden to stock markets and venture capital. Companies built around the idea that profits are part of the means by which we do our job and put food on our tables, not the be all and end all target for their own sake.
To use a simple example. A coffee shop should be opened and chartered to provide the community with excellent coffee and atmosphere for social gathering. Profits keep it in business, and keep the owner and workers able to do it, and able to live and enjoy these things like everyone else. It is entirely backwards to look at providing coffee as a means to profit.
I think Luddite-ism is the naive solution to some real issues.
They are right of course, but it is less about technology killing industries; and more about how the benefit of technology is distributed.
For example, if we work together making widgets, and feed our families making them, then I find a way we can make them faster for the same cost, we can do that, and maybe we make the same number of widgets in less time, and reap the benefit of increased time with our families. This is, sadly, not how things work with corperate structures that are singly profit minded.
Under the current paradigm, we make widgets for someone else, we all feed our families, but, if I find a way to make them faster for the same money, you get laid off, and I spend my time making twice as many widgets for the same or only slightly larger pay. I am, of course doing better in relation to you in this scenario, but make no mistake, we are both worst off in the end.
Repeat this over and over, and you have the current situation. Technology has improved, we can do more, and so, less of us are asked to do more work for not more money. Technology isn't really to blame here. Technology is the boon that reduces the requirement for work, it is just that the people who actually do the work get screwed by it, rather than benefit from it
That just says there are sectors that are booming. This shift has left a lot of people behind. what you are ignoring is all the lower skill jobs. Now when I say lower skill, I don't mean McDonalds; I mean any job you could do with a 2-4 year non-technical degree and on the job training.
It used to be, you go to college, prove you can read, write, and take training, and you were almost garaunteed a middle class lifestyle supporting job. The entire economy was based around the plethora of these jobs.
My favorite example is the paralegal. They still exist, yes. However, it used to be a single lawyer with a big case would hire an auditorium full of paralegals just to study case law and review documents. Those days are gone, that job is done by a small handful of people. An entire auditorium reduced to maybe 2-4 people.
That is why you are seeing people with college degrees working at McDonalds and those with less education struggle to get even the shit jobs that they used to be considered "stuck with". We have seen the huge rise of part time, low wage employment.
But yes, our sector is booming and it is great. That is partially because we empower everyone else to hire less people, and use the ones they do hire more efficiently.
You know I agree with the basic premise, but it is also why I am so against war. The thing is it is "see it thru and secure the intended outcome." Intended outcome is the problem: war seldom is any good at securing an intended outcome.
Look at Iraq. Was the "intended outcome" just to kill their dictator? Mission accomplished eh? That is a very shortsighted goal, and by any real measure, Iraqis were better off under their dictator. Just about anything you could look at and say "look how bad things are for them", it got worst with war.
There is an addage that every problem has a simple solution which doesn't work. War really seems to be that solution. Sure, sometimes one is left with little choice; but to steal a line from a movie, it is a broad sword not a scalpel.
War tends to be a piss poor means for achieving meaningful outcomes; and is even counterproductive at many goals. Who cares if you kill a terrorist, if, in doing so, you make his viewpoint seem more reasonable and help recruit 5 more? Intended outcome achieved?
War, with few exceptions, tends to be about the ruling elites using the poor as pawns in their struggles for power and profit. The intended outcomes are generally little more than excuses for this. In that I think the most apt observation has been repeated in the fallout games.... war never changes.
Course, you guys often have it worst over there, but, in Boston today it was quite the opposite.
In fact, last I checked it was almost 60 F outside. This morning, the foot of snow we got a few days ago was melting so fast you could actually see the water vapor coming off the piles of snow, it was enough to make it the foggiest commute I have had in what seems like a decade.
Looking at the forcast, we are expecting this snap to hit us and bring it down to 16 tonight. That is one hell of a temp drop!
> Bob knows that none of the "obvious signs" were really there, that everyone made them up to
> explain in hindsight what nobody saw coming.
Exactly hindsight is a bitch. I lived with a con artist once. It was impressive the way he manipulated me and everyone I knew. After we kicked his ass to the curb, this weird thing happened. Every person I talked to about it, everyone had noticed something. Something they thought was odd, or something they shrugged off.
It was like telling them the end result, shines the light on the things that are obvious. Like the way he claimed to have spent summers in France and would demonstrate by asking me what time it was in French. I was out of practice but one day I belted back the time in French to him. I could see he didn't get it, so he pretended like he didn't hear me right, so I repeated, but, even as he nodded and smiled, I could tell he had no clue what I said.
Shugged it off.... little things, all these little things that make so much sense together, so much sense in hindsight....but...nobody actually knew until the shoe dropped....then everybody knew.
I have been traveling through time since I was born, forwards, at very large portions of C relative to the third planet from your sun. In fact, I have traveled over 35 years since I was born, its been quite a wild ride.
hmmm Where did you get the idea that I hate hunters? I know hunters, I have no issue with hunting. I just don't really consider shooting at birds which have had their wings clipped and been setup to fly in flocks right in front of you for easy shooting to be "hunting" any more than dropping dynamite in the pond is "fishing".
> For who? Drug dealers? Money launderers? Libertarians with a hate-boner for fiat currencies and the Fed?
Yes, exactly, are you claiming they don't exist? Because they, in fact do, and some of them have some resources; and there are others more than willing to trade from them.
Sure it has issues, even compared to cash but... cash can't be used for online purchases either. I don't think it is a problem if one currency isn't the perfect solution for all problems. Is it really a failure of one currency if it only fills in a niche? Do you really think the niche of providing online transactions to people who are distrustful of other currencies is a failing?
As a niche market, I think bitcoin works pretty well overall and fills in a real gap between cash and traditional bank mediated transactions.
Wait, you mean the people who write the laws leave themselves major loopholes? I never would have guessed that.
It is a lot of work, however it isn't the "hunter" who does it. The owner of the "hunting ground" is the one who does it and then charges parties to go out and shoot the animals. Lots of paying jobs are work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_hunt
and from that article; doesn't talk about that particular incident, but one a couple of years before:
What kind of dick uses live animals just as targets and kills more than many families could eat in a single session? Dick Cheney does. Which I mean, I have no problem with animal slaughter for food or clothing but, we don't call people who work in slaughterhouses hunters.
Except, wasn't Cheney on a staged hunt? I wouldn't call that bird "hunting" so much as.... using birds as targets.
I mostly agree, especially about it being a non-story.
Part of the issue, I think, is conflating a wifi password with other passwords. A wifi password has several properties that set it apart from others.
For one thing, it is usually shared between devices, even ones used by different people (lets ignore advanced schemes, if you are setting up some manner of authentication none of this applies).
Secondly, it is only useful within a small geographic location. A website or email password can be used by someone half the world away. A wifi password is only useful within range of your particular access point.
Thirdly, the exposure is mostly limited. While its true that someone could drive up to your AP and start transmitting child porn, and that could lead to some serious consequences; the real abuses here are only attractive to a limited audience and not something generally useful or generally financially useful.... it doesn't give them access to your accounts, even your email downloads are likely encrypted to him.
Overall, exploiting this is more work than it is worth much of the time, and if it wasn't, it isn't like it is impossible to add more controls. If you really are paranoid, you can always drop wifi devices onto their own segment that can only talk to a VPN endpoint....shit then you can run the wifi passwordless and use the VPN for protection.
In any case, this is 99.9% a non-issue.
3) Don't ask me for Win 8 support. I don't know. I don't want to know. Windows 8 is dead to me :)
My Windows 98 box has been really slow and wont let me download games. Someone said I need to clear my temporary internet files but, I was afraid I would lose all my porn if I did that, since that is where it always downloads to