Exactly. The old adage never was "Corrupt people get into power" it is, "power corrupts". It is not a matter of getting out corrupt people out of power because, it was never the who that was the problem, always the power you were giving them that creates the corruption.

You are correct and, after a few decades of observing my brethren I really should be more fair and point out the problem is NOT the people speeding past in the right lane.... but really that the people who drive the slowest overall like to be in the middle and for some reason feel the proper speed to be at is the same speed as the car directly next to them.... like they are trying for some sort of rolling phalanx.

Nope. Yubikey looks cool but it is a OTP solution that requires an OTP compliant service that works with it.

What I am talking about is a small device with not a button, but a mini-keypad on which you can enter your unlocking password. Once you do this, you select which password to send and send it....all from the device itself, with no PC interaction.

ALL it requires is an HID interface, no extra components. I can't find the original project (maybe it was arduino based? no pi based?) but it was a portable password vault not an OTP solution.

Very cool of course, but, not the same and not as universal.

Yes but, also in the real world, devices can be modified from their intended functions. Whether it is implemented via a remote command or simply autonomous identification, is immaterial, because the person in control has physical access to the hardware and can modify it.

Not that I think this is a real threat but, they are right about this as a possibilioty...and I am sure...someday.... it will happen. Luckily, blowing stuff up is already easy. "Terrorists" could have been using RC planes to deliver bombs what.... 40 years ago?

This doesn't really confer any new ability to them, just another way to accomplish the same old thing.

The ONLY real protection we have or ever had was, the vanishngly small number of people with any interest in actually killing others....and its actualy seriously effective.

Nobody is making you have knives in your kitchen. You can have nothing but sporks for all anyone cares.

This would be more like, the police requiring every home to have a glass case with a battering ram next to the front door....just in case they need to use it to get in.

Course some of them (I have been stuck behind my own grandmother on my way to work in the morning) drive so slow if they did get in an accident, it would be unlikely to seriously injure a pedestrian, never mind seriously endanger other drivers.

Also, if they are dead (say heart attack) before the accident, does that even still count? Technically nobody was actually driving at the time of the accident and nobody caused it, as the car was driverless at that point? Is it still a fatal accident if nobody actually died from the accident, or does that still get recorded as a "fatal accident" rather than an accident caused by a fatality.

No Mass mode is where you try to drive fastest in the rightmost lane, and turn left before oncoming traffic when the light turns, or roll out into oncoming traffic in order to block the travel lane closest to you so you can make a left (both seperately refered to as the "Boston left" in depending on who you are talking to)

I have to say, I REALLY like password manager someone was working on that was based on, I think, a rasberry pi, where it would actually act as a USB HID to enter the password, and keeps your encrypted passwords on its physical hardware device.

Still susceptable to keyloggers and other malware but...1) they can only get the passwords as you use them and 2) they will NEVER see your master password since it never even gets entered into the machine, but only to the password keeper device.

Now THAT is how to do passwords right.

> There will always be people in power. That's why good government attempts to balance this power so that the
> result is beneficial to society as a whole.

I was really interested in Alan Moore's statement on anarchism and how everyone always claims anarchy would lead to the biggest gang being in power; but that is really the state we have now, so isn't this just a "badly evolved anarchy"?

What I mean here is, I agree, there will, most likely, always be those who hold power over others and would use their power to control the lives of others, hell, we see it every day. The main function of government is not to enable that, but to hamper it and to attempt to make it easier for them to do other things than directly mess with people who don't have power.... kind of like the way you move the plant you don't want the cat to eat to a spot he has to work extra hard to get to, thus setting him up for success rather than putting it on the floor where his nose passes by it every few hours as he walks.

The thing is, those in power will always be looking for ways to slip their collar off; you have to be willing to ask whether the current collar needs to be replaced occasionally.

Hell there was a case where police raided a home looking for someone who wasn't even there. In the process tossed a flashbang in a kids crib....then disclaimed all responsibility and said it might even lead to charges against the...PERSON WHO WASN'T THERE!

Thats right, if the police have reason to suspect you of something, they are of the opinion its your fault they are investigating and you are responsible for any harm they cause to anyone else by their own actions.

> (a) it must be possible to determine whether someone's actions are actively harming another person and (b) that
> unless "privacy violation" equals "active harm", and it doesn't, any privacy violation is allowed.

Except that assumes that the law is always correct. Privacy is, fundamentally, a restriction on the reach of the law; an a necessary and right one. Why, not too long ago privacy was the best defense homosexuals had from persecution.

Society has always been full of people who disagree with the law, and break it to little consequence. Why shouldn't they? The law is just a few rules written by aristocrats....it needs serious limits on its reach, more so than we have.

Um I said something about attackers? You responding to the right comment? I mean I agree there are so vanishingly few real terrorists that even 36 a year would be a massive overstatement...agreed. However, those tiny vanishing few, those tiny number who do exist....they plan, and can and will tailor their plans to whatever security measures are in place.

So yes its true, this will prevent a terrorist from using a phone shell which has been simply hollowed out as a bomb. However, it will ONLY do that because, in the highly unlikely event that anyone was actually planning to do that, they would now revise their plan....slightly.....

So its a measure which is unlikely to be effective against a scenario which is unlikely to happen.

You miss my point, I say no two Christians even have the same imaginary friend, since each of them has an independent imagination in which to instantiate their friend.

I mean yes, you can give two kids the same model of barbie doll, but if one cuts the hair on theirs, the other will not have short hair, they may be the same class of doll, but they are not the same doll.

You are missing my point though, finding the best path is not actually required. Not only that but the game itself has mechanics by which paths are made and points that might need to be pathed to are created. Paths could be pregenerated as the map is dug out and items built within it, individuals could pick from pre-defined paths and then follow them.

A few examples of where this is actually better....

Currently lets say a dwarf plans to go down hallways A B and C to D. But he could go A B E D instead. Now as he enters B, a door in C is locked, dissallowing him to move C to D.

Under a "I path find every step" scenario, He immediately starts moving towards E and then D. This is highly unrealistic unless they all have walkie-talkies, but then, it "works" for invaders too.

Now under a less rigid scenario, maybe he chooses A B C D. Then gets all the way to C and sees the path is blocked, so he turns around and repaths. It is less efficient but more realistic, and potentially requires less expensive pathing.

No they each imagine a different imaginary man in the sky, but their stories all have common origin so they pretend he actually exists and thus is a single being. Far more accurate that way.