If pass phrases are inherently far more secure, why do we still prompt people to create and use a *password* and then make a big stink that they did *exactly that*? Just because they do that poorly we shouldn't hold that against them since the process itself doesn't do anything to help them do so better--it's actually at odds, whereas simply indicating the different process of selecting a pass *phrase* does.

Why not simply change the labels and validation (since when should a site ever *prohibit* any specific character from a pass phrase?!!) to say "pass phrase" to urge people in a better direction?

We have bone-headed developers that have "helpfully" sent out emails to every member of a site saying "to improve security we have stripped all non alpha-numerics from your password"... Huh????? a) that means you stored my pass phrase *in plain text* in your database, then b) you *shortened it*! and c) you reduced the available combinations and d) turned my pass phrase into a password.

We have *banks* adding "site lock" security--reducing the security of their websites and *lying* to their users telling them that a) it increases their security and b) *trust the site lock image to indicate that it's really the correct site* rather than educating them to check the *SSL cert*!

Perhaps we need an article similar to "what every developer needs to know about character encoding" but for "handling user credentials". It's obvious that it's not just users that don't get it--but many developers and businesses also.

That read <4.0 when I wrote it.

No chrome for Android 4.0, which is still nearly 40% of the current Androids in use.

When I know what I want, I don't need (or want) a salesman in the way. They aren't actually providing a service at that point--they're just like little kids watching as the cookie jar is brought out waiting to get their hand in it.

It's silly to me that manufacturers cannot sell their products directly to consumers. I'd love it if the "build-your-own" features on all their websites were actually useful--with a "buy now" button at the end rather than a "check local inventory" that never has exactly what you just spent 10 minutes configuring.

I haven't used RH in over a decade--but do remember years ago they had a decent installer that would even pull up a tetris game to occupy you while it copied files. Sad to hear it's gone downhill. (Or am I recalling Caldera's installer?)

There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere. How you act in public, witnesses around or not, is open to public knowledge--be it praiseworthy or ridicule-worthy.

Furthermore, if they first claim it was being taken in as evidence, then later they *deleted* the file--doesn't that constitute destruction of evidence (the source recording) on the police department's part? (unless they used full chain-of-custody and a data-forensics lab to copy the file?) Not to mention the obvious violation of his private information as well--I highly doubt they bothered to get a search warrant before perusing his phone's contents.

I dunno what distros have this limitation. At least gentoo installs as multilib by default allowing 32bit apps to run just fine. There are also 32bit library wrappers allowing 64bit browsers to use 32bit plugins. This has been true for years.

While I agree with this conclusion, the problem here, is that drivers don't get trained and routinely tested in a simulator for their ability to handle failure conditions, unlike airline pilots that both learn and *train* what to do for all sorts of contingencies. Furthermore airline pilots are given psych evaluations to ensure they have a reasonable ability to not panic and freeeze in an emergency situation. A stuck accelerator pedal will likely cause a majority of average drivers to panic and just hang on for the ride feeling out of control.

There's a reason flying an aircraft requires more training and more frequent recertification (check rides)--more can go wrong, and anything going wrong that is not handled in an aircraft is much more likely to be fatal. Whereas just about any idiot can manage to get a license to drive a car.

I would not be opposed to more stringent qualifications for driver licensing. I think people take for granted how serious operating a vehicle really is--it's a 2 ton missile, and the laws of physics yield for no one.

Limited Liability Car!

Rather than try to formulate some arbitrary yet scientifically measurable number specifically for just one more possible cause of impairment, which may result in different actual effects in different people, why not just directly test cognitive and motor skills like they used to for alcohol before the breathalyzers were widely available?
Seems that testing someone's awareness and motor function directly would address the immediate concern--and handle *any* possible cause: alcohol, THC, prescription meds, OTC meds, and outright drowsiness (your own melatonin) all with one test.

Yes, it is. Because it means they don't really have to compete. If the nearest dealer is the only one for 1000 miles and they won't place a factory order for you below MSRP, guess what you have to pay for a custom order? Or... go find another dealer much farther away that will place the order for you at invoice and have to pay shipping (or fly out and drive it back).

Without these laws, you could order just what you wanted, pay invoice, and have it delivered to your door.
So, true, while they don't preclude you from placing a custom order and getting exactly what you want, they most certainly are relevant because they affect the manner in which you have to go about doing so and the price you may have to pay to get it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new-car-online

Removing these laws won't make franchises disappear and all their employees become jobless.
It will make them have to be honest, compete, and actually *add value* rather be a protected middleman guaranteed business.

Just imagine if franchises had to win sales based on their *knowledge* of the products they sell, convenience of having ready-to-take, *desirable* inventory, and *honest, capable* service departments?

Instead we get the horrible current situation--you want a new car? You *must* go to a dealer--even though half the sales staff know less than you about the car you want to buy. You want *warranty* service? You *must* go to a dealer--whether they are competent or not.

In the ideal world in my head, a license to perform warranty service should be independent from a license to sell new or used vehicles. Any mechanic that can pass the manufacturer's certifications can qualify for a license to perform warranty service. You could place a custom order directly on the manufacturer's website and have it delivered to your home--or opt to go to a dealer and inspect existing inventory-where they have to *work* to earn a sale from you--by being knowledgable, and being good at choosing inventory that people want--not forcing their random selection on people because there are no other alternatives.