My Mother is dead, you insensitive clod!
My Mother is dead, you insensitive clod!
Yeah, but this is the same Jesus that made a Scourge (whip with metal bits at the ends) and forcibly evicted money changers in the Temple. He wasn't opposed to violence, he was opposed to revenge violence. Specifically, there is a strong opinion that this has more to do with being a Servant (to G-D) than anything, for a bondservant has no right to revenge, only his master has that right. By giving up that right, you declare yourself the proper bondservant Jesus wanted. This would mean the person "turning the other cheek" was casting a much harsher punishment (hell) on those that perpetrated it, while also allowing for the redemption of the criminal should they repent of their sins.
Lastly, the eye for eye, tooth for tooth, was about equity of outcome (in the Old Testament). A person harmed by a criminal act, had the right to equity of results upon the perpetrator. This means, that the perpetrator would have to live under the same conditions, for the rest of his life, that he cause upon another. This same provisions also require full restitution for the harm caused (money).
In truth, it isn't as barbaric as it seems at first glance. And from their (ancient) perspective, our current judicial system seems completely useless, providing little or no justice to victims.
Death, if warranted, yes. The problem is that our judicial system is flawed, and thus we are often not 100% sure it is warranted. WHICH is why I support the concept of the Death Penalty, while opposing it 100% in practice. We (mankind) can rationalize doing all sorts of evil, in the name of good.
It isn't hate. There is an equally rational side that suggest that painful death as a consequence/punishment of violent crime DOES have a deterrent effect, even if minor. Anyone that commits violent acts, does not deserve the continuing protection from society. However, we, as society, recognize that our judicial system is flawed even at its best and thus, try every means possible to keep people alive, even when it is clear that they have no benefit to our society. And that is also completely rational.
However, when nature takes over, I have NO sympathies for those about to die a slow painful death. My sympathies are to their families to the extent that they lost a "loved one". Love, is also not rational, which is why people can love and care for people who are so depraved they deserve no such devotion.
Rough men do those things, at the politician's request. The Army just doesn't invade a country, it does so at the request of people YOU help elected (whether you voted for them or not, I'm speaking collectively)(assuming you live in a democratic society of some sort).
In short, YOU (we, us) are the problem, not the soldiers we send on our behalf. Wanna change which wars we fight, change who you vote for, AND Politic for more people like you voting for your kind of liars to represent you better.
Short of changing who you vote for, and getting others to vote similarly, you're representatives are doing what most people "want" (ostensibly). So, yes, they are doing exactly what you're unwilling to do, because you/we/us have told them to do exactly that.
Unfortunately, not enough people support people on the libertarian side of things to really change the outcome. People on the left choose war monger Feinstein and from the right, war monger McCain the same, not because they are war mongers but rather because of other less important issues like "abortion right" or "fiscal conservative". War mongering is just a nasty side effect.
We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.
He has some understanding, someone was stealing power from the school. He doesn't need to know how much.
Imagine if everytime you went to the store, you took a nickel out of the till. Now imagine everyone doing the same thing. No one person is "stealing that much" but in aggregate, they are stealing the store into bankruptcy.
In short, STEALING is a crime, because it wrong, no matter how little you "steal".
So, you're okay with SPAM because the stealing of services is inconsequential?
The problem isn't the one guy, it is the one guy, times a factor of a couple thousand others, each getting their own free $.05 charge. Pretty soon you're talking thousands of dollars. Stealing is wrong, because it takes from others that which is neither earned or deserved. The amount doesn't matter on one case, but when you excuse the one case, and it becomes common, then you have to "pass a law" to stop it further.
It is much easier to stop it now, before it becomes a legal nightmare.
And why are we praising someone who is being a cheap asshat, simply because it is $.05 worth? Next time, they should simply cut his power cord (unplug it first), and tell him to stop stealing.
For long runs, in parallel, which are common in some places, you use Shielded Cat6 (or better) cabling.
You can have the power and data in the same "conduit" if you get twin raceway.
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying passwords of 8 characters or less (roughly 48 bits) are screwed if the attacker has $1000 and gets a copy of your hash for offline cracking.
Per password. Given a database of thousands of passwords, properly salted and hashed, which do you think he'll attack? And you'll have to assume that attacker doesn't know the value of anything beforehand, but only can make educated guesses. If you're doing brute force, you do the simplest brute force to crack as many passwords as you can. If you're targeting a single individual, there are better easier ways of getting passwords (Spear Phishing) that cannot be hacked quickly via dictionary / easy brute force. The fact that in your example, you already have an offline password file, I'll assume it is a high value web / commercial target that you've already breached. Which in that case, using MY advice (unique password per system), using sufficiently long password (21 Chars min), you're looking at least a week using your example of $1000 equipment or approximately $20 per password crack, minimum investment to crack the password, with no guarantee of return.
Using PURE math to solve real world examples doesn't really fit. If you're concerned about Password security, and safety of your account, you'll change your password periodically so that in case of database of passwords being hacked, you'll have your password changed before they can crack the password in the database using your $1000 rig. In short, a hacker will have to make a significant series of
1) Long passwords are better. Three sufficiently long words, or five or more shorter words, to establish a password of 21 or more characters for BASIC web sites is probably sufficient. Making them unique for each site is recommended.
2) Use a product like LastPass or a private key vault to store your passwords you use often.
3) Do not save passwords ANYWHERE but your secure vaults, change your master password regularly using three or four significantly obscure words of seven letters or more.
4) If you are a direct target of hackers(they're after you specifically), hire better security and don't take advice from some dude like me on Slashdot. Otherwise you're probably safe using my suggestions.
You cannot "panic" a market that is experiencing huge fluctuations in prices already. There is no panic here, as most people already expect huge fluctuations. I'm sure there will be many bubble n burst cycles in the BitCoin market. This is not a market for the timid.
So, in short a 5% drop is NOTHING to people in BitCoin Market, and when the price recovers. The real problem is the larger Bubble that is occurring at the moment, at some point, people buying at $2000 will find the coins back down at $250 when someone liquidates 50 million to fund their new yacht.
The average American high-school graduate knows approximately 45,000 words (1) nearly ten times the number you cited.
And, as I have stated elsewhere (above) the point of a long password is to get past dictionary attacks, and onto brute force. And right now, password length is a deciding factor to even attempt dictionary attack.
$ # 1 # $ Padding example (slashdot filters ugghh)
To be honest, even the password "D0g" is sufficient, if you add enough "Pseudo Random" padding values.
Has 67 bits of entropy, without even really trying. Adding in additional padding adds entropy without really changing the password. adding in a Padding pattern that is easy to remember (>) makes it easier to use simple passwords. The complexity doesn't matter once you get the algorithm to stop dictionary attack and move to brute force. The goal is to get beyond the dictionary attack, because most people will simply stop searching after that. And it might be as simple as password length.
You don't want your password to be the low hanging fruit.
If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.