Forgot your password?

Comment: Reason for hope (Score 1) 306

by OneSizeFitsNoone (#48368297) Attached to: I'm most interested in robots that will...
Universe exploration ranking #1 tied with running chores, and fighting crime to the bottom, followed by the other two fights considered: robot vs robot and robot vs human. Just the opposite of what government is doing. As always, people generally prove to be better than the politicians who run the nation and govern over their lives.

+ - Should one trust a physical encrypted password keeper?->

Submitted by OneSizeFitsNoone
OneSizeFitsNoone (3378187) writes "Today I wondered how much should I trust a project designed to provide people with a hardware device that stores all passwords one uses in his/her digital life on any kind (or most kinds) of digital device: Mooltipass.
The pros are that a device can remember a large number of different, very long and very complex passwords that no human could. And it could even type them for you pretending to be a USB keyboard, relieving you of the annoying process of password retyping from one device to another.
On the other hand, should one entrust all his/her passwords o such a device? A security breach on a Moolptipasss device would have obvious catastrophical consequences. And how much trust could we put into the soundness of the hardware and software solutions that it's going to implement? It's touted as "A non-proprietary device: Anyone can develop new tools for Mooltipass" and "An open-source platform: Being able to read the code allows you to check and enhance the security of our Mooltipass". But with the slew of FOSS security breaches we've run in in the recent past exposing the fact that third party security code auditing is rarely done and is a just theoretical code quality guarantee, how much can one trust a solution that is both hardware (apparently not OpenHardware) and software? Could it be just an undercover crowd-funded NSA trojan horse project, "One Mooltipass to rule them all, One Mooltipass to find them, One Mooltipass to bring them all and in the Rootkit bind them"?"

Link to Original Source

Comment: License: MIA (Score 1) 429

by OneSizeFitsNoone (#48114629) Attached to: BitHammer, the BitTorrent Banhammer Copyright (c) 2014 Michael Cole The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the software or the use or other dealings in the software. Now, these are not licensing terms: this is just a disclaimer.

Comment: Re:Yes yes yes (Score 1) 405

As with everyone else who wants to reduce the population, I say to you "you first".

World population and consumption rate is well beyond the sustainable threshold. Population reduction is going to happen anyway, the soft or the hard way.

You can have a much higher standard of living today with one person working than you could in the 60s!

In theory, if you look at the average household income. If you look at the actual wealth distribution patterns and if you keep in mind what today is needed to be employable (in terms of education and specialization) compared with what was required 50 years ago, you find out that a lot of people today are hopelessly unemployable and basically incapable of caring for their family.

The end of mindless menial labor is a good thing.

Much more that "mindless menial labor" went down the sinkhole, and too little sprung up to replace it. A large number of the population is hoplelessly unemployable, and the trend is towards a further reduction in human performed work being available. This, while a shinking minority of the population is gobbling down an ever increasing proportion of the wealth produced and productivity keeps running up: http://www.hire-intelligence.c...

Comment: Re:Yes yes yes (Score 1) 405

How does reducing the population help? Then you'll simply have fewer people to buy and sell goods.

People who are out of job are bad buyers anyway.

Why can't we do that now, instead of reducing the population like you said a few sentences back? People work more because they want more, they see that shiny new Iphone as a necessity rather than a privilege.

What planet are you from, chap? Being unemployed is not a choice for most people (actually, for everyone except very few ascetic-minded ones). And a lot of people would rather spend more time leisuring around that having to work longer hours/working weeks to make ends meet.

Comment: Re:E.Coli (Score 2) 82

by OneSizeFitsNoone (#47825391) Attached to: Researchers Harness E. Coli To Produce Propane

This is Propane!

Now if we add this to cows and pigs, we will have to fire proof all the farms.

Indeed we do! http://timesofindia.indiatimes... "LONDON: A farm shed in Rasdorf, Germany, burst into flames after a heard of 90 cows produced enough combustible methane gas from just their farts. According to the local police, a static electric charge caused the gas to explode with flashes of flames, the Daily Star reported. Even though one cow can emit up to 500 litres of methane every day, fortunately, explosions due to cow flatulence is not frequent."

Comment: Re:All that money... (Score 1) 579

by OneSizeFitsNoone (#47710481) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

MS uses XML to save documents. Put them wherever you like.

Put then where you like, but forget *using* them wherever you want or wherever you might need them: 08.02.14 Microsoft Continues to Further Distort OOXML in Order to Make it Less Compatible With Non-Microsoft Software

Comment: The SWATification Of America (Score 3, Interesting) 534

Such a coincidence, just today I read this: "10 Facts About The SWATification Of America That Everyone Should Know" "The number of SWAT team raids in the United States every year is now more than 25 times higher than it was back in 1980."

Comment: Re:Economic reasons (Score 0) 384

by OneSizeFitsNoone (#46875461) Attached to: How Concrete Contributed To the Downfall of the Roman Empire
Right! ÂAnyway, even from these qualitative data we should be able to understand why the Empire was in trouble. One of the main causes of the trouble was that it had this big military apparatus, the legions, that needed to be paid and didn't bring in any profit. It was the start of an hemorrhage of gold that couldn't be reversed. In addition, the Empire bled itself even more by building an extensive system of fortifications - the limes that had to be maintained and manned, besides being expensive in themselves. [...] Military expenses were not the only cause of the fall. With erosion gnawing at agricultural yields and mine productivity going down, we should not be surprised if the empire collapsed. It simply couldn't do otherwise. So, you see that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a complex phenomenon where different negative factors reinforced each other. It was a cascade of negative feedbacks, not a single one, that brought down the empire.Â

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.