Last week. Video is here.

Might as well get it from the horse's mouth, no?

Children are not oblivious. They can tell when there are problems in their parents' relationship. What sort of relationship role models are parents who have really dysfunctional relationships? They give a really horrible idea about what romantic relationships *should* be to the children exposed to them.

That's not to say (for all the not-so-deep thinkers out there) that a couple should split up at the first signs of problems, but when it becomes clear that the issues in the relationship are intractable, staying together "for the children" is not only dumb, it may well be harmful to the children later in life.

Eh? Not so much. Consent is the only thing that implies consent to sexual relations, nothing else does. Marriage does *not*.

Marriage is a contract which *may* acknowledge a sexual relationship, but that contract is not consent to sexual relations.

Consent is not optional, friend. Non-consensual sex is rape, regardless of those involved.

Assumptions:
1. People aren't very good at choosing hard-to-guess passwords
2. Complexity (Case, numerics, special characters) don't significantly add to entropy
3. Password managers can create and store high-entropy passwords
4. Password managers must be secured with extremely strong, crack resistant passwords
5. People need to set the passwords for (4). See (1) above

And there's the rub with TFA's assertion that password managers are the band-aid to help us past the era of passwords. If we can educate people to create strong, memorable passwords/passphrases for the password manager, then people can do the same for other passwords. Which makes a password manager redundant.

If we cannot educate people to create strong, memorable passwords, then the likelihood is that password manager passwords will be just as weak as those the TFA is decrying, rendering password managers just one big target.

And since a password manager presumably contains lots of passwords for a variety of logins (including sensitive accounts), it becomes a much better target (especially when you can steal the password DB and perform offline cracking activities) than trying to crack passwords online.

The author of TFA is correct that there are issues with passwords, but his recommendation is poorly thought out and might be even more hazardous than the problem it purports to mitigate.

Including the article.

However, it's still a rather interesting read.

Apologies. I messed up the link:
v7 Unix.

That is correct. It was based on Bell Labs v7 Unix, which DEC ported to PDP-11 and VAX, and renamed V7M. Ultrix was the follow on to V7M and was first released five years later, in 1984.

Ken Olsen expounded on the DEC's relationship with loved UNIX:

One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic is our support for UNIX? Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago. Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines. And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s. It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming. With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there. [emphasis added]
-- Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984