What theory does he reject? It's simple math that shows that Munroe's method is better for creating stronger passwords (at least for the average user)

The theory he rejects is the hidden assumption that people will actually pick random words. You've also missed that hidden assumption, and focused on the math. I tend to agree with the security researcher above that the assumption is wrong, and people won't pick random words for passwords.

Most people have a bank account and an ATM card. The ATM card has only a 4 digit pin on it. That's only 10,000 possibilities, or about 13 bits of entropy. Since most people choose dates (birthdays, anniversaries), there's really only about 400 possibilities for the average person. But yet you don't hear about mass amount of fraud when people are robbed from ATMs. Why? Because to withdraw the money, you need two things in your posession. The card, and the pin. If you get the card, you also get a small number of tries on the card before it's locked. Even at 1/400 per try it's unlikely you'll be robbed with 3 guesses.

  The larger problem is that "security people" tend to think entirely different than most everyone else, and just assume people act like them. They don't, and no amount of education or pleading will change that. So if you want real security on the web, it's time to ditch passwords as the sole means of authenticating people. You can't change human nature, and that's the root of the problem.

  Ebola is actually no worse than AIDS, from what I can tell from a quick search. So long as there's no bodily fluid contact, you're fine.

I agree with everything else you're saying, but this is absolutely false. AIDS is VERY difficult to get. You won't get AIDS from casual contact with saliva, urine, sputum, or feces. Ebola can be contracted by any of these coming in contact with your eye.

So they're worlds apart in terms of how transmissible each is.

Other people talk about the self-promotional nature of Edison, and how Tesla wasn't as interested in that. That's true, and that's a piece of the answer. But there's another more basic difference in what they invented. Edison invented end products that people came into contact with every day, like the electric light or the phonograph. Tesla invented the infra-structure necessary for modern life like AC power generation, and the AC motor. Those are hugely important, but the average person doesn't come into contact with them directly, only the effect of it.

So it's much easier for the average person to see what Edison did for them, but harder for them to see what Tesla did for them. It shouldn't be any wonder that Tesla isn't well known.

Hello,

As a maths grad working with computers, you probably have to rely on documentation for any tool you're using, right? The article is claiming the documentation is inaccurate. If we can't rely on the documentation to be accurate, what can we rely on? Maple, Matlab, and Mathematica ALSO rely on the documentation being accurate. If they told you one precision, and you got another, might you not complain, and want that information widely spread so they're more apt to fix it?

Also, I've noticed that Math people seem to have a bias for perfect answers. That's rarely, if ever the case in science. Science is often "good enough", not perfect. If the processor gives a "good enough" answer for what you're trying to calculate, then so be it. Not everyone needs the exact answer as you might need in mathematics.

Apparently you don't understand what I'm saying if you're talking about copyright law. I never actually mentioned that. But alas, all you can do is redirect to something you can win on.

I see Ray. Interesting that you can't respond to my argument and have to resort to critiquing a spelling error.

Most stores these days have their own store credit cards. To apply for them you give them your SS#.

The FBI doesn't want its agents to lie, or default on student loans (the latter is often simply a matter of economics, not honesty), but yet the Snowden documents reveal that the FBI commits perjury in federal court to hide the true, illegal sources of information they got from the NSA. Described here, http://www.alexaobrien.com/sec... Search for "Parallel Construction"

. The rule that what I create with my own hands os mine to give away, trade, or sell exists for a very good reason.

And what's that reason? Not everyone agrees about imaginary property Ray. The concept is rather new. You're free to disagree, but the world is changing and as information is so easy to copy fewer and fewer people are seeing things your way. I don't really know anyone that really thinks you're a criminal if you share a TV show with your friend for instance. TV is already valued at approximately $0, since it's been free for so long. You seem to have an attitude that laws and cultural values are set in stone rather than the amorphous and variable concepts that they actually are.

These sorts of laws are cultural ones, and the culture is changing. It's not exactly clear what's going to happen with copy written property, but a good many people don't see it your way. That tends to change laws. 30 years ago it was unimaginable that marijuana and gay marriage would become legal, but the culture changed and now it's inevitable they'll both be legal in all 50 states. Are you prepared if copy write laws are reformed in another 30 years?

They might not use an NSL, but I wouldn't count on it. The other blunt instrument the government has at it's disposal is the
Authorized use of Military force, which doesn't even mention surveilance or data and is about military force, but which the government has cited in its warrantless wiretapping when sued by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...">ACLU. Kind of a stretch, but the government has long tried to get away with whatever they want and let the courts rule on it later.

So I have no problem beliving the US goverment wouldn't try some crazy interpretation of a statute never inteded to give them the power to do that, but which they'd hope the courts would take years to rule on.

Presumably, the apps on the phone have access to the encrypted data on the phone, right? So there's a simple solution. The user is happily using their iWhatever. The government sends a Nation Security letter to Apple forcing them to put a backdoor into the phone of the target, such that this app can read whatever data it wants on the phone. So when the user boots up his/her phone, and enters the password, the rougue app should be able to read all the data on the phone.

Can anyone tell me why this WOULDN'T work?

Their old trading platform TradElect was based on Microsoft's .NET Framework, and was developed by Microsoft and Accenture

You missed the real problem. The last word in that sentence. Accenture. I don't love Microsoft, but I don't think they're the big problem here. Accenture is a WELL KNOWN bad company that produces shit. They make Microsoft look good. Everyone I've ever know that's worked with them has a bad story to report. The same isn't true of Microsoft. So don't blame MS for the failures of a shitty outsourcing firm.

Are you aware that you're helping to reinforce one of the points two comments up?

I don't agree. Being critical of his work on a technical basis is VERY different from personal attacks. I found poettering's post to be good, and I agreed with that he has to say. I've also had shitty problems with the sound on Linux before, which I _think_ might be attributable to pulseaudio. I can't be sure, but I have no trouble beliving pulseaudio might be shit. I don't take a stand on systemd yet, but my instincts are that it's the wrong approach. But I'd never get personal with the man, after all, it's just software.

And somehow, writing software that a group of people deem as bad means that you should be met with horrible physical tortures?

Umm.. what? Where did that come from? Nobody suggested physical violence. Nobody even got personal. Please stick to what people actually said rather than pulling stuff out of nowhere.

Why, exactly, would warmer weather make food production harder?

Because climate change isn't just warmer weather, it's a shift in the weather patterns. Our current infrastructure is everything from the choice of crops we grow to the location of the farmland and is all dependent on the current climate. If that shifts, that makes food production harder. The belt of wheat production has already shifted northward. Weather is hugely influential to what plants grow where. Changing the weather changes what will grow as well as the pests that also affect yield. Climate change isn't simply about getting warmer, that's why the language has shifted to climate change, not global warming.

I don't agree with your assessment of why SUVs became popular, and I also don't agree they get 30-40 MPG. My small sub-compact gets that. The SUV craze was driven by status symbol. They're big, make people feel powerful, are insanely expensive. All reasons to drive consumer demand because people make decisions on emotion as well as economics.

Having had plenty of sex without having children, and having known people who've had abortions, I beg to differ. The problem is solvable if you choose to solve it. If you don't choose to solve a problem, no problem is solvable.