Except, that's not entirely true. Yes, while people typically use very weak passwords, Gawker's mistake was that they used DES (WTF?) to encrypt their passwords. DES has been shown to be not strong enough for quite some time now. On top of that, Gawker did not handle passwords correctly in the first place. No salt. No hash. It was just one big screw up.

So, yes, people choose bad passwords, but that can only result in a small compromise (one account). In Gawker's case, they had the whole entire system compromised, and it was very easy to crack those passwords.

Just to respond to your arguments about the drawbacks of cloud computing:

A. From my own experience, this is rarely a problem - at least within countries that have a good Internet infrastructure. Most places you can get WiFi somewhere, and even in a country like the U.S., which is spread out, most areas have internet access. The ones that are far in few between (say, the mid-northwest of the U.S.) is the exact reason Google, Apple, and others are building their devices with 3G. Typically cell phone coverage is good enough for basic needs, and you can wait until you get back to a true connection (read: WiFi) for others (watching Netflix or something).

B. Oh, I wouldn't say that. I use most of Google's services, and it's absolutely free to me. Yeah, if I'm paying for a cell phone data plan, that costs me $30 a month, but I'm not paying for that plan JUST to use the cloud. I'm paying it for all the internet access I get (back to part A). So, it's not really comparing apples to apples. And, of course, "backing up things locally" is not good if you truly want to protect your data. Sure, it's great for doing quick transfers or something like that, but if something happens to your home (say, hurricane, flash flood, fire, etc), my guess is that both your PC and your external hard drive are going. Cloud back-up is redundant and off-site. That's definitely a plus.

C. This is a point I semi-agree with. For those of us here who are smarter than the average bear, or have a greater insight into computers, we probably have more secure systems (since we are probably only managing a few) and present a much smaller target than, say, Google. But too many people out there download SuperTrojan or CoolScreeSaver.exe and suddenly find themselves infected. In their case, Google can do a much better job than they can at protecting their syste.m

D. This is really the same argument as A, so...

I disagree. I can think of a number of people who this would work really well for. And, while it is still new and it's a huge disruptive approach to The Way Things Are(tm), I think there is some real potential. Is it going to be perfect? No. Like they demonstrated with Android, Google likes to learn as they go. It sometimes is to their detriment - as it was with Google Wave. It was an amazing idea, but the implementation was poor at best and they did very little to market it and/or sell it correctly (which, coincidentally, I believe is also a problem of theirs with their efforts at a social networking platform). However, if they do this right, Google has the capability of really causing some major waves in how people think and use computers. I, for one, am interested in seeing what happens.

This is actually part of the problem. Because the United States already has a built up infrastructure, it can be very difficult to work around or with the individuals/government who own that infrastructure so that the fiber can be updated. As a small example, I can't get Fios at my home, even though it's available one block away, because the township I am in (right at the border) refuses to allow Verizon to dig up part of the street (even though it would be repaired, of course). My friend has a problem like this as well, but, in his case, it's his HOA who refuses to let Verizon dig up the lawns.

Amen.

What these billionaires are doing is trying to leave a legacy behind. When you are as rich as they are, stuff doesn't mean anything to them any more. They can buy whatever it is that they want. Instead, they want to go down in history books, or keep their name alive, or do whatever it takes to have some sort of imprint on the world well into the future and, presumably, past their death. As AlteredEgg pointed out, money does not buy your way into heaven, but it does keep you pretty famous here on earth.

Yeah...because lower classes NEVER go begging to...oh...say...some big entity like the government for a handout. No. Never.

Why do you assume they failed? Maybe they advertised it to appease the current WHARGABL of the month, and then...just didn't implement it (or made it hard to find). Either one is not a failure*.

* Failure is oftentimes defined by point of view...

Now now. Let's keep our expectations realistic.

/take it how you want

Your statement presumes that those are two different things...

Very untrue.

The fact that something is entertainment does not make it a pointless waste of time. For example, snowboarding is entertainment to me. As part of that, I bond with friends, enjoy the outdoors (and get to see some new sights), get some exercise, and feel accomplished when I do some new trick I'm working on (assuming I don't end up in the hospital in the meantime...helmets have saved me more than once).

Now, when specifically talking about video games, those aren't necessarily a waste of time either. For example, a friend of mine comes over every Friday before we head out for a bite to eat, and we enjoy a few hours of [insert video game that we decide to play here]. Sure - we don't accomplish any TASK in the real world, but we enjoy the bonding time, and usually end up talking about whatever is on our mind (which is very good to do). Video games provides the medium that has helped our friendship become stronger.

Video games DO become a waste of time when they are replacing more valuable time. This is true of anything. I have to be careful that I don't spend too much time on my computer (not gaming - just programming or reading the news) because then that time replaces time that would be much better spent with my loved ones.

And how does that make any sense? First off, in case you hadn't read the Declaration of Independence, it says that "all men are created equal." As a result, based on the Constitution alone, we all should be protected from unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure. Secondly, the point you very much miss is that there are individuals (middle-aged Caucasian Catholic men) who would be just as willing to bring harm to America as any other terrorist. So, that's why we have to look at everybody, and not just certain people.

Now, I would argue, that we are going about profiling about the wrong way. Don't profile by culture or race - that would just piss people off. Instead, train the airport employees to be able to psychologically profile individuals. Almost all people (and, in reality, all people) have nervous tics and the like that can give away clues that they are planning on doing something wrong. Someone who is trained in spotting this can pick these people out. If we had highly trained employees to watch for this (ticket agents, airport security guards, etc), everybody else could go about as normal with absolutely no problem, and those few individuals who are displaying psychological signs could be pulled aside for questioning (NOT search until there is more evidence).

Of course, training requires more money than we've put into TSA already...so...that's not likely to happen...

Yes, because cash gives me back 1.25% on all my purchases, and it's safe to carry around >$1,000 (especially where I live). And, you are protected by case in case the computer breaks and you want to return it. And cash gives you an extended warranty.

Yup. Cash is wonderful. /sarcasm, in case you missed it

Wow. That much?

Wow. If that isn't blatant typecasting if I have ever saw it...

Time for a true story...
The night that Obama was elected into office, I was downtown in a major US city. The moment that it was announced, a woman working a local convenience store turned from the TV she was watching and shouted, "Obama is elected! Everything is going to get better now!" Her coworkers cheered. She then proceeded to go back to her TV and cigarettes and not worrying so much about doing a good job. You see, the problem with your typecasting is that it can work both directions. In my case, I saw someone who was relying on another person to fix their life for them. It made me sad, actually. I ended up not even buying what I wanted to get because I just wanted to get out of there.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of smart people and a lot of dumb people living in the US, and a lot of people in between. However, we're all just human, and classifying a group of people as you did does nothing to actually solve the problems of this nation that we live in and only exacerbates the divide between political lines.

Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to swilling a Bud while I read 1 Corinthians and yell at the driver's on TV (and hope for a good crash).

While posting interesting things may result in pissing someone off, I have learned that insightful posts - ones that really understand the problems at hand - are what really