Actually, my bank is perfect for this method, as they have the secret questions either, and if you needed to get them right, and the password to login, I think you'd get similar protection??

The bank requires a secret question on new systems anyway, then verifies with a cookie, I bet you could combine said questions with the password the way this article describes.

It all becomes a shell game, if you need to connect to the main DB at any time, then a compromised system can be a problem.

The only solution I can think would involve downtime by writing to disk, booting single user mode, updating the master copy while safe in single user mode (assumption being that is as secure as memory anyway), reboot caching locally changes (which are probably not that often in a typical system).

You'd have to have an hour or so of scheduled downtime, in exchange for only users that signed up, or changed passwords since the last scheduled downtime are vulnerable. For many systems I'd think this is a reasonable trade, for example, my bank's website, that allows checks to be written (though not without email notification for email address change, and check being written), could go down an hour a week, or even a day between 4:30am and 5:30am eastern time (2:30-3:30 western), and it wouldn't be a big deal.

I bet that makes password changes and adding accounts super easy too.

They did that to me too, no longer offering modem purchases, or modem only.

I was able to get it into bridging mode, but it was a big pain on the phone (they asked for a reason, and I just said work VPN equipment, and every rep I spoke too (I talked to 3 because switching modes revealed the one they shipped me was broken and I had to get a new one) knew what I meant and was super helpful, but I was kinda cranky that they locked the ability to bridge from the admin interface. The Modem / AP where I work allows the customer to turn on bridge mode.

The fact that you make that choice makes you a good driver (and that I don't arguably makes me a bad driver (thought I'm past median miles between accidents with no accidents yet, so I'm not the worse driver at least).

I'm not saying talking on the phone isn't bad, simply that those that talk on the phone don't consider the potential issues with driving distracted in general, and frequently make the wrong call (such as reaching for a dropped candy bar, etc.).

Part of the issue with many studies is they take people, but them on a course or simulator, have them drive. This has them driving at their best (there's a word for subjects being better than real life when being studied, I'm too lazy to find it). Somebody focused on driving with full attention is obviously significantly better than someone that isn't, but in day to day driving many (such as myself) are not particularly focused anyway.

I think it was this study:
http://www.vt.edu/spotlight/ac...

along with explanation (by study author) on this podcast:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/1...

that formed my opinion.

And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents. They did find that operating the phone does, at a similar rate to any other activity that takes one's eyes off the road for a second. The dialing is dangerous, the talking not so much so. In the real world that is, because in the real world people aren't hyper focused on driving, the phone cuts into that other part, not the driving part.

It's the day dreaming, the trying to place a song, drinking of coffee, adjusting the radio, etc. Part of the brain that the phone deprives in real life.

In the study you mention, all that is artificially focused on driving.

The problem is that in these studies people are focusing when not using a phone. So it's focused driver vs cell phone driver, but in reality many drivers dont focus in real life.

Studies that worked by installing cameras in cars and seeing what actually was going on found that the accident prone drivers were quite often doing terrifying things behind the wheel, only one of which was too much focus on a phone conversation.

They said that it didn't take long for people to stop acting like there was a camera, but it did take days, not hours.

Aren't the prices set by law too?

Cabs are regulated similar to the post-office, there are more and less profitable routes, and some subsidize others.

They don't want non-licensed services that can charge whatever they want to snipe profitable routes at a lower rate.

I'm not saying it's good, but it's really not a case of artificial scarcity. I know I've gone on routes that are higher than they like, and others where they'd be happy to negotiate a lower price.

from TFS it sounds like it's part of x.org, it's all the same developers.

I assume it's a server that kicks to Wayland, similar to Xnest kicking to X.

I did state take credit for "ideas", "even falsely".

I thought the wayland/android thing was a response to Mir though. And that part of the reason Mir came to be was to use Android driver.

And Unity isn't terrible, as long as they keep things easily replaceable (by using Wayland etc. under it), they have real potential I think.

What they are doing with phone has real promise too. They really need to work within the system though. KDE is working on similar things with Plasma (netbook, vs desktop, vs active), it'd be great if at least some of the work between the two is sharable. Not just great, but part of the platonic idea of FOSS.

yeah.

Ubuntu started projects used to get adopted, as time went on, they went more off the walls, and their projects became tainted.

The Mir thing is really upsetting to me as a user, because Wayland has demonstrated the ability to take feedback and adapt, making the whole split seem like lies.

Wayland really seems like a smartly run project handled very well, that seems to be a huge mistake.

Even if in principal I like the idea of Android drivers working, I think Wayland has been working on that too though.

Upstart vs Systemd I have no specific opinion of (though systemd I think addresses a security risk designed into upstart), but at this point upstart is done, everyone else has chosen, even those that initially used upstart (Fedora).

They need to take credit (even false) for spreading ideas (upstart, actually using wayland, experimenting with what it can and cannot do), and use what gets settled on, unless there truly is something missing.

but from what I can tell, the Ubuntu style release schedule took off over-all.

And as long as things are consistent, it will have the effect Ubuntu wanted (or close too it, they basically wanted upstream to release 4 months before them, so they could integrate if memory serves).

In what way did they violate the trademark?