Comment Re: This worries me (Score 4, Funny) 258
I doubt they REALLY mean inclusive, otherwise people that know nothing about birds (like me) would be able to have their say in this.
This is how we get Birdie McBirdFace as an official name...
I doubt they REALLY mean inclusive, otherwise people that know nothing about birds (like me) would be able to have their say in this.
This is how we get Birdie McBirdFace as an official name...
Selfing is more convenient than sex
Story. Character. Visuals. Pick two, at very least.
And if you pick Visuals, please make sure the physics (of motion) are at least somewhat realistic. Bad CGI with bad physics has been the primary thing that has put me off from all the super hero movies of late. I am okay with suspension of disbelief in a movie (in some ways, that's the point), I am okay with magic and super powers - they are fun to imagine being real, but breaking basic physics of motion is always jarring to me and resumes my disbelief. I know it's odd that I am good with things like teleportation, shape shifting, and failure to conserve energy or matter..., but for some reason bad and unrealistic motion is the killer for me. I am not against CGI - when done well, it adds a lot; but when done poorly (cheaply) without respect to the art of how things actually move, it sucks.
Seems to me like managing/storing passwords in the same software/process that is connecting to the Internet, downloading scripts/code, and executing them, is a bad idea. Using a separate password manager, running under a different security context than the browser (and not running when not needed) is a better idea.
If you're talking about web site passwords then there's no security benefit in keeping them outside of the browser's security context, since you're just going to give them to the browser every time you use them.
Clearly, there would be some security benefit in keeping passwords that aren't used on the web in a separate password manager. But most people don't have many of those these days.
While that is true for the passwords you are actively using at the moment, it's not true for passwords for websites you are currently visiting. When passwords are stored in the browser, the browser itself has access to all those passwords. This means that the browser itself can upload them to wherever it wants, whenever it wants (with or without your permission). The browsers now mostly automatically patch themselves now. So if the browser developers decide that they want to test all your passwords for you, it just happens. If there is a bug or a supply chain attack in the browser's source code, your passwords are all now vulnerable. If a malicious add-in gets installed in your browser, you passwords are all vulnerable. If there is a security bug, and somehow some web page has some scripting or code that escapes the page's container, triggers some cross site scripting error, or whatever, your passwords are all vulnerable. This is why I think it's a bad idea.
Fedex and UPS have guaranteed times. Anyone with prime shipping can tell you times range from tomorrow to next week.
They do on paper, and they are pretty good at meeting those times. You do have to pay quite a bit to get those guaranteed times, if you just use their non-guaranteed "ground" services, delivery times vary widely.
My experience with Amazon is that when they give you a delivery time, they are pretty good at meeting it. Way better than Fedex and UPS ground, and about the same as the major carriers scheduled delivery services. It only takes one or two deliveries per month for the cost of Prime to be less than the cost of Fedex or UPS guaranteed delivery times.
It may be that I live in a major metro area with multiple Amazon warehouses, but I find that delivery times are very predictable and reliable when they are "shipped by Amazon". Granted if you buy from third party sellers that do their own shipping, all bets are off, but then you aren't using Prime.
There are other reasons to hate on Amazon, but in my experience, delivery reliability isn't one of them.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.