Since you're not going to bother scrolling back up the page to see what I mean, I'll go ahead and say it - that comment was in response to your strawman about Creationists.

That statement was from you but you attempted to imply that it was from me.

That is a straw man.

Pointing out that Jenny McCarthy and Creationists BOTH ignore scientific evidence is not a straw man.

You were the one who started talking about "morons". Let me quote you and provide a link:

No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5028117&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=46749487

That is your comment and that is you making a straw man about "moron" claims.

Look, Brah, I don't care what you think about feelings, or damage, or strawmen, or whatever.

Except that you do and that has been your entire argument. I need to be nicer about pointing out that some people ignore all the scientific evidence that contradicts them. Then you go off on a straw man.

Measles does not care about feelings.

My mistake for assuming that I was talking to someone who understands what the words he uses means. Words like "straw man."

That would be your hypothetical straw man friends whom you claimed were calling Jenny McCarthy a "moron".

What I said was that she (and the anti-vaccine people like her) do not have any evidence to support their claims.

FWIW, I'm not the hypocrite who's putting up strawmen and accusing others of doing the same thing when they make the apparent mistake of responding.

Yes you are. And you are "tone trolling".

Like I keep saying, measles does not care about your feelings.

Herd immunity has precisely dick to do with how you present your argument.

And, again, measles does not care about your feelings.

And now there are outbreaks of measles because of the anti-vaccination people. Real people. Real diseases. Real damage. None of your hypothetical straw men needed.

No, I mean like people who "point out" the evidence for evolution by looking at Creationists and saying things like, "goddamn but you're a moron! How is it that you're allowed to breed? Someone should put you down for the good of society!"

Well that's good. Maybe you should take all your hypothetical straw man friends on a party cruise.

Make all the excuses for anti-social behavior that you want, but the fact is if you're being an asshole to someone for being wrong, you're only serving to make the problem worse, not better.

You might want to look up some of the outbreaks of diseases that have happened recently.

Oh, you won't, will you. Because actual damage to actual people doesn't fit your hypothetical straw man.

Anyone who refuses to get their children vaccinated BECAUSE I SAID THAT JENNY MCCARTHY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC SCIENCE is not going to change because I don't state that.

That is what a "zealot" is about.

Jenny McCarthy isn't stopping you from getting your kids vaccinated, and being a dick to her and her kind for holding a certain viewpoint is only going to make them grasp it even harder.

Look up "herd immunity". They're increasing the risk by NOT getting the vaccinations.

Which is why there are outbreaks of diseases such as measles now.

Facts. Not feelings. Measles will not care about your feelings.

No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.

You mean like people who keep pointing out the evidence for evolution when Creationists insist that humans were riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?

If the basis for your understanding of the world is who is nicer to you then you have a problem.

Jenny McCarthy can talk all she wants about how "mommies" have a special understanding of medicine and science that equals or surpasses that of people who have spent years studying it. And there are a lot of people who will believe her. Because they want to FEEL special.

But an epidemic of measles does not care about their FEELINGS.

Looking around, there are plenty of zealots on all sides of this issue.

Yes, and by "zealots" you mean people who understand basic science.

Because the anti-vaccination people have not been able to provide any evidence to support their claims.

But the medical scientists have been able to.

I think she is wrong to connect vaccines to autism.

That is her whole point. She claimed that vaccines cause autism. If you don't want to risk giving your children autism then do not vaccinate them.

But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant.

Pointing out that she has NO medical training is NOT "attacking her personally".

She is making specific medical claims. She is doing so without any evidence.

Her general position that she is not against vaccines in general but only against un-safe vaccines is a valid position.

Bullshit!

If that is so then you should be able to show which vaccines she claims are "safe". AND what her MEDICAL evidence is for those being "safe" versus the "un-safe" vaccines.

The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer?

That is MORE bullshit.

The issue is whether "existing vaccines" cause autism or not.

So far, there is NO medical evidence to support her claims.

Whats worse, a AG who doesn't know or AG who knows and ignores it anyways.

It's not an autocracy.

You vote in the least problematic option and then you work with the other branches to limit the problems.

I voted for Obama. Twice. Because I thought the other options were worse. And now I oppose many of Obama's policies. And I let my Senators and Representatives know my opinions.

But you keep thinking that a extremely brilliant and accomplished individual, having obtained her Masters degree at age 20, isn't smart enough to ask the right questions or able to go toe to toe with Cheney or Rumsfeld....

The problem is that, while she is smart, she is also ideological.

If her ideology conflicts with the facts, the ideology wins.

Not only was she NOT willing to ask question, she WAS willing to give press interviews with WRONG information. Because that WRONG information suited her ideology. Even though it would cost lives.

NOT the kind of person YOU want on the Board of Directors of a company tasked with providing access to YOUR data.

She didn't care enough about the lives that would be lost to ask any questions. And she cared so little for those lives that she provided wrong information to support the drive to war. Do you think that your DATA will mean more to her than that?

But for a company which does cloud storage to expect that people won't look at that appointment and say "oh hell no", they're sadly mistaken.

Seriously. Who would look at her record and think "Yep! My data is safe with that company. They're 100% supportive of my security and privacy."

Anyone that thought the Iraq War was a good idea, should not be described as "pretty sharp".

That depends upon whether you mean "good idea ... for the USofA" or "good idea ... for me and my friends".

A lot of companies made a lot of money off of that war.

She is female (and black), and promoted to the highest levels, despite the failure of nearly all her policies. She is proof that you no longer have to be male to be both successful and incompetent.

I don't agree with that. I think that anyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc, will always have a job publicly supporting the existing power structure.

She wasn't elected. She was appointed by the people who were elected. And those were white men.

Which is why I think that she's now at DropBox. She still has those political connections. And DropBox wants to pay her for access to them.

This is just a mountain made out of a molehill by leftists who are fans of the government of Cuba ...

False dichotomy. Rejecting A does not mean accepting B.

... and don't like when Western governments try to undermine it.

See above.

I have news for them: doing things like this is the intelligence agencies' *job*.

Just because someone is paid to do something does not mean that anyone has to support that.

They're supposed to spy; that's why they're called spy agencies, and Cuba couldn't be a more deserving target.

Since Cuba is not a threat to the USofA in any way that statement is incorrect. There are many ways Cuba could be "a more deserving target".

If Cuba doesn't do such things itself, it's only because of lack of budget in these post-Soviet days, not lcak of scruples.

Circular reasoning. And you even admit that Cuba is not doing the same to the USofA.

But I wouldn't like it if Cuba dropped bombs on us either, yet I'm not foolish enough to say that it's immoral to drop bombs on another country.

That entirely depends upon how YOU define YOUR "morality".

The solution is the paper allows a weak authentication before the threshold is hit, so the server could allow "slightly wrong" passwords for the first 30-60 seconds after it starts up.

Yeah, I think that's a problem. There shouldn't be any way to tell a "slightly wrong" password from any other wrong password.

That brings up the question of how you authenticate those first N users.

Which is a different problem with that approach.

They could have also had the server admin type in the formula for the line that the system will use.

About the only issue this "solves" is having ONE secret that has to be shared between the admins. So you won't have the "disgruntled" problem. Each admin gets his/her own portion of the secret.

Just like requiring two keys to launch a missile.

More like you have the hashes for all the passwords (you downloaded it when you cracked their server).

And you have ONE password that you created on their system. So you have a password and a hash for that password. From which you can probably deduce the "salt" used.

But you cannot get the passwords from the other hashes because they each use a different "salt".

The problem is that the "salt" for each password is calculated by that machine based upon "special" accounts providing correct passwords that provide the information needed to generate the line that is used instead of a traditional "salt".

Which means that those "special" accounts are now ONE SET of keys to cracking that entire system. And they have to be secured.

And I'm still not convinced that, given enough passwords, their system does not fail anyway. And password re-use is a major problem with users and their passwords.

Until it returns to actually showing science fiction shows, as opposed to paranormal, fantasy, horror and talk shows...

All of the above!

Wheaton's Star Trek character takes on the role of Rod Serling/The Crypt Keeper and presents ghostly stories from alien races across the galaxy.

Episode 1 - The Kowardly Klingon. A Klingon who hides from battle is tormented by the ghosts of those who died. Or is it just his conscience?

It won't work because it will be, successfully, argued that you're getting paid in miles rather than cash.

And there will need to be a central authority where you can redeem miles and register to participate. And at that point the government can set a value on each mile.

Just because YOU don't set a value on something does NOT mean the government CANNOT.

And no, sex-work is NOT the same as a girlfriend who borrows money from you.