Couldn't agree, more.
I think Langley and the Pentagon probably deserve about 800x the airtime as ISIS perpetrated evil, but hey. If you show us blowing little children to bits, or their flaming bodies running from wrecked buildings, then you stray too far away from propaganda and into the realm of journalism.

We need the enemy to be irrationally violent. We don't want them to appear like a group of people who have suffered countless deaths of their innocents against fire dropped from the sky and have been easily whipped into a religious furor in their grief by a group of clerics.

Ya, I'm glad we don't have a long history of killing entirely innocent people in that region of the world. We'd lose our moral high ground.

I do agree with you 100%. However, I also think apologists for imperial superpowers should witness where those bombs they see launch actually land. I think they should definitely watch the children in the streets blown to bits by smart bombs. The man crying and holding their little broken bodies. If someone did it to you, would you really decide that you will not retaliate? If you decided to retaliate, how would you do it against a superpower? Would you perhaps be perceptive to some psychopath fucked up dogma in your grief? Nobody says you're wrong, but your point of view is so goddamn narrow it hurts.

It most certainly did, but I think you're ignoring the environment that allowed a populist psychopath to rise and pull his people from the rubble that was imposed upon them. Hitler may have been the cause of WWII, but it's fundamentally dishonest for anyone in any Entente nation to disavow responsibility for putting the German populace where they would embrace such a monster.

To me, Fox's goal is very definitely to drive a wedge between the West and the Muslims. As they seem to share this goal with the likes of ISIS, They are literally working for them. However, one could also say ISIS is literally working for Fox. In fact, fundamentalist psychopaths seem to all be working for each other regardless of the continent they live on.

Work
verb
1. Be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a purpose or result, especially in one’s job; do work:
an engineer who had been working on a design for a more efficient wing
new contracts forcing employees to work longer hours

1.1 Be employed, typically in a specified occupation or field:
Taylor has worked in education for 17 years

1.8 Make efforts to achieve something; campaign:
we spend a great deal of our time working for the lacto-vegetarian cause

He used it quite literally. As did you. You seem to be the one trying to narrow the definition of the verb work to only fit your ridiculous argument.

Oh, I should also mention that when you get pestered you should click the feedback link and complain. All Google properties should have a feedback link, and the feedback does get noted and acted upon, though the volume precludes individual responses in most cases.

Yes, because you would have set up 2FA. No need to pester you to do what you've already done.

Where do you see this pestering? I'll file a bug; if users are feeling pestered, the security advisories are doing it wrong.

How is ISIS relevant in a discussion about advanced naval warfare? The intersection between regimes able to muster the industrial power to field naval and air forces which require railguns and lasers to oppose and those who publicly burn people alive is empty. That's not a coincidence.

That's not to say diplomacy isn't relevant when discussing ISIS. It definitely is, though it's a different sort. To deal with the likes of ISIS you have to first focus on containing the madness, which requires diplomatic cooperation with surrounding powers, and then you have to identify and address the root causes of the madness (note that Islam is not the root cause; it's merely a convenient hook on which to hang the madness). The US, of course, prefers to try to fight the madmen, ignoring the fact that in this like trying to put out a fire by pumping the bellows.

Not after they catch it.

He didn't, and he's right, and there's nothing wrong with what he's doing.

The key in question isn't a login authentication credential used to access large numbers of machines. It's the key used by Debian systems to verify that they trust software packages from Debian. Note that all Debian software packages are installed as root, and run scripts as root during the installation process. Many Debian software packages include binary code that is run as root during normal usage.

This means that an attacker with the signing key and access to the download servers can create packages that run whatever code he likes on every machine that installs them, as root. If he picks packages that every running Debian system has to have, he can control all well-maintained machines within a few days. That would be hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of machines, not thousands.

If you have a smartphone you can use the Google authenticator app.

If you use bcrypt to hash them, there's a good argument for limiting them to 64 characters, which is that bcrypt will truncate them to 64 characters regardless, so users who use longer passwords aren't getting the benefit they think they are. Unless teh user chooses an insanely weak 65-character password this probably doesn't matter in practice, but I would restrict it just to be sure.

Note that this isn't a reason not to use bcrypt; it's an excellent tunable password hashing algorithm. It just has this one odd restriction.

You're conflating issues. Apple TV has dozens (hundreds?) of channels at this point, with the only notable absence being Amazon Instant Video (no one seems to know if it's Apple or Amazon keeping it off of the Apple TV). Roku may have more/better channels. Or it may not. I don't know off the top of my head, and, frankly, it doesn't matter to most people since most of the important channels are on all of the devices anyway.

Where Apple does lock things down is with the content that you purchase from them, such as TV shows and films. THAT'S the black hole, since those remain locked to Apple devices unless you go through contortions of dubious legality. But there's no need to get your content from them, and just because you have an Apple TV doesn't mean that you're locked into Apple's ecosystem. I've ripped all of my media to HDDs at this point, and I stream it to my media center via my Apple TV. I could do the same on a Roku, an Xbox, or any number of other devices, and have in fact done so in the past, but I found the Apple TV to be the simplest, easiest, and most reliable to use of my available choices, so it continues to get used in that way. If Apple ever locks it down, I'll simply switch to something else. No big deal, since I'm not locked down.

TL;DR: Apple TVs don't lock you into anything. It's iTunes content that locks you in.

The same goes for every e-mail provider. Email account access is the crown jewel of online identity, because if I have access to your e-mail I can reset the passwords of all of your other online accounts, including your bank account.

If you're using a short, weak password and not using two-factor on your e-mail because "it's only e-mail"... please think about what other accounts use that e-mail address as their password reset mechanism.