Can these certs be used for S/MIME authentication, or could they be used to generate personal certs for S/MIME?

We're started using S/MIME extensively at my office, and I'd like to be able to do it at home... it seems significantly easier than using PGP.

This. Got a large codebase in Obj-C? You'll be hung out to dry. Remember WebObjects? Of course you don't.

While this is true in many cases, the angel investor of today has generally got priority on returns from any sale of a startup today. It's very different from the publicly traded dot com bust according to articles I've read on the subject. If "the bubble" pops this time, some investors will be hurt if they can't sell the startup. However, if the startup is sold for what was invested, the people left holding the bag will be the employees working for little more that stock options and a dream of a big exit. Those people will have worked months/years and will get no return. Their shares will be effectively worthless.

Join a startup when times are good expecting times to stay good seems like a good way to get burned. (buy high, sell low) Joining a startup accepting that there is inherent risk in what you are doing is, as always, a gamble. (penny stocks) Joining a mid to large size company with a legacy code base that has to be maintained by some old master in a particular language/framework/architecture seems the safest route to steady income, but you'll never become really wealthy. (Bonds) Catching the hype wave and riding it into newer, higher paid positions has great returns until your wave turns out to be a dud. (Stocks) In 2005 it was web apps, in 2010 it was mobile apps, in 2015 it looks like machine learning. If you bet on HTML5 apps in 2010*, you struggled. Many did.

*Flame away HTML5 people. HTML5 didn't make $40000 a day on flappy birds and iFarts. I know those are exceptions, but employers eat that stuff up. Salary studies that I saw reflected this.

Gather 'round children, and let me spin a yarn of the old days when human-computer interface guidelines existed, and were created using actual science instead of fashion trends...

So, my ideological transition went from Reagan Republican to Goldwater libertarian to Rothbardian Anarchist.

Personally, I am socially boring, somewhat socially conservative, and evangelically religious. I don't (politically) care what other people do to themselves; as long as they and their government don't do it to me or my family.

I've really given up on government as an entity that can create moral good in the world; it seems that historical attempts to have government play that role have turned out poorly, both for the people involved and the morality being coerced.

I've tried to explain where my head is at so you can try and tailor the message in a way I might understand.

Can you help me understand what the "war on women" rhetoric is about?

Assume that I'm an intelligent person, with degrees in Math and CS, and extensively educated in history, medicine, politics, and economics.

Yet, despite this, I cannot for the life of me understand how people with different ideas came to those ideas via any plausible mental process. It seems to me that there are fallacies all around - why aren't they seeing them?

I want to assume that they are acting with good intentions, but I am unable to debug or understand them and their decision making process.

So, this is a legitimate request for help, and not a thinly veiled attempt to demean or attack someone.

Will you explain what the "war on women" is in a way that will cause me to want to listen? Explain what things are included in this war, and what things aren't.

I mean, my inclination is to throw a flag on the play before it even begins; a political "war on women" appears to suppose that all women should think and want the same things politically, which is self-evidently insulting to women and denies their essential individuality.

For instance, the only people I know personally who are tireless anti-abortion activists (and I know several) are all women. Are they part of the war on women?

I'll stop, and hope you craft a well-intentioned response.

Thanks.

The one thing I want to point out is that you should recognize the name "Cass Sunstein"; he's not some random academic, he was part of the Obama administration, and has a bunch of ideas that you will find either kooky or great, depending on how you align politically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

He's also good about co-opting terms he disagrees with as a way to try and attack intellectual opposition. He calls a bunch of things libertarian that are flagrantly NOT libertarian, for instance.

Me too. Car, house, mailbox. We should probably add a yubikey though.

Totally agree. We put feeders on the hives in late winter / early spring for the same reasons. It's especially important here since blooming can be so variable.

my point was - bees don't freeze in winter, they starve.

Someone else covered this but is buried.

Bee colonies do not freeze in the winter. They starve.

We've been keeping bees in North Dakota, which is colder than wherever you are, for 7 years. All 3 of our colonies survived last winter. One is strong enough that we've split it this spring to try and prevent a swarm.

The way that bees operate in winter is amazing. The bees form a sphere, with the queen near its center. They vibrate their wings and bodies to create heat. The bees on the outside of the sphere obviously lose heat the fastest. The bees on the inside stay the warmest. The sphere of vibrating bees constantly turns itself inside out, over and over, so that the cooler outer edge bees return to the warm core and replenish their warmth, while the warm bees from the core circulate out towards the edges after they've recuperated.

This consumes lots of energy (and food).

As the cluster of bees does this, it moves upwards in the hive, consuming stored honey.

When they get to the top of the hive, they stop migrating. If they run out of honey, they die.

We use 2 deep supers and 1 medium honey super to over-winter our bees.

But just think of the awesome TV shows!

Blackmail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Oh how I wish I had mod points for you today...

and volunteer to help test. We have a steady stream of trolls available for review, a truly endless supply.

So I agree entirely with your sentiment, except I chuckled when you wrote that you live in Seattle.

What's funny about that is Seattle is also full of rich dumb people that make dumb decisions.

If you've done the Seattle underground history tour, you know that Seattle basically sunk into the sound long ago. The whole city history is replete with stories of stupid people that fought nature and lost.

Recently, the highway 99 project comes to mind :)

Well, I personally take the view that any society that forcibly sterilized 50% of its residents doesn't deserve to continue as a society.

I also don't think Malthus was correct.

Someone insinuated that I'd be ok with Jewish concentration camps if that resulted in a society that survived.

That's a hard question to answer. On one hand, what was done to the Jews was clearly immoral. On the other hand, a society that goes extinct isn't around to argue that it was a moral society. Heinlein noted that survival is somewhat of a precursor to moral behavior.

What we'd like to hope is that the choice between survival and violence against others is a false choice - that there is always a way to both survive and not harm others.

But that may not be the case for all societies in all situations.

It may be that the Native Americans came to the conclusion that you did -- that anything beyond a certain population was unsustainable given the technology level and resources they had available to them.

That may have been an eminently moral choice.

It also means that what they thought doesn't matter today - because there weren't enough of them to defend themselves against an invading society with different ideas.