Just to make it clear, I'm in favor of omnipresent surveillance. I'm opposed to the surveillance being restricted to the few. I believe the capacity for each of us to see what has happened and is happening anywhere on the Earth is magnificent, and that is what I fear we will lose. I hope we can develop the decorum that we will need to allow the human race to blossom into creatures who spend their entire lives taking it for granted that they can see anything and everything, and still have privacy despite there being no secrets, anywhere.
And just do this for 20 different passwords, because you should never reuse one.
Good luck memorizing.
Firstly: Which do you think is harder to memorize... a strong password, or a sentence?
Secondly: You can safely write it down. So, you don't need to memorize.
Finally: You shouldn't reuse your banking password, or the password for your laptop or office computer, obviously. When you're talking about things like web forums, it's not really that important.
Seriously, it's time to rethink passwords because if you don't like that I write all this shit down in a spreadsheet that I print out and stuff in a binder, well, it beats the other guys post-its on their monitors.
NOT ON THE COMPUTER!
For work passwords, WRITE them down (pen) on a piece of paper and keep that piece of paper in your wallet.
For home passwords, WRITE them down and then that piece of paper like any other important piece of paper for your home.
If you do it on the computer you do not know that the system has not saved it to a temp file or something that a cracker will find.
People who will physically break into your house and steal your computer are a different threat than people who will break into your computer via the Internet. Protections against one will not help against the other.
A better technique is to come up with a sentence and make your password the first letter of each word. Then, come up with a system of your own for adding a number that is derived from the sentence. Then it's safe to write down the sentence.
This is the sentence I write down: "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers"
So, the first part of my password is "Iaaaisittsgh"
As for the rest... hmm... I like money. I'm going to use $ as my non-alphanumeric character from now on.
And we need a number... I'm going standardize on using the number of words in the sentence.
So, my sentence derived password is "Iaaaisittsgh$12"
But the only clue you're going to get is a post-it note with the phrase "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers" written on it
Good luck guessing that sucker
I think that governments are perfectly capable of becoming corrupted even without Bill's influence.
You're right, of course.
Perhaps it was Duck Duck Go who were hoping to fill the void...
I have to say, I agree that it's time to stop glorifying hackers.
We need people to build things far more than we need people to break them. Building things is cool. Breaking them isn't. If you find it more enjoyable than crosswords, hey, enjoy yourself... but really, it's not a particularly admirable use of your time.
Now, making a spectacle of peoples private lives... that's just plain rude, and no more admirable than a paparazzi peeking through your hedge. No one is going to be comfortable with transparency in our society until people learn how to keep their noses out of other peoples personal business. What this "Guccifer" fellow is doing is peeping tom type creepy.
Locking and unlocking things constantly is inefficient and annoying. It's something you only do if you're surrounded by dickheads and have no choice.
These two concepts are presented as being synonymous in popular discussion. A "You can't have one without the other." kind of thing.
This concerns me greatly.
I could write at great length about the threat secrecy poses to human culture, and have before, but that's not what I'm going to do right now.
My first thought is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is behind this. Wouldn't be the first time they've corrupted the Indian government. Anyone remember not that long ago when they were going to allow their indigenous pharmaceutical companies to start manufacturing and selling drugs to their massive population for cost, before Bill swept in with funding to pay for drugs for the upper and middle classes in exchange for leaving the law as it was? It was covered here on Slashdot.
Windows 7 was the first version of Windows I actually enjoyed using since Windows 2000. Microsoft lost me when they came out with Windows XP and I switched to Linux. I would never have considered going back to Microsoft, but then Gnome and Unity both tried to force their own vision of Metro on me. I used Windows 7 in the office, and was actually ready to buy a new computer and go back to Windows. But, when I showed up with my money, there were no Windows 7 computers to be had, and I needed a laptop, so I've got Windows 8.
I hate it so much. Every time I click a file and it opens a metro app and obscures the entire screen, I grind my teeth and swear.
But there's just nothing else I could install that has any real critical mass of users that wouldn't suck just as badly.
The technology that used to empower me have been fucked up at every turn by the influence of the advertising and entertainment industries. Sometimes I just want to abandon IT and go be a farmer.
The right way to do mobile computing is glasses and a glove that detects subtle hand gestures. Touch screens covered in fingerprints with buttons you can't distinguish by feel are not an optimal way to do ANYTHING.
When is this stupid fad going to end?
I'd rather live in Brazil. They still respect traditional gender roles. That trumps everything in my book.
yesterday's hardware does what 99% of end users want.
When the hardware gets good enough, we won't need carriers. That's something to look forward to.
Reminds me, I haven't looked in on Serval lately. Last I checked power consumption was one of the major blockers...
I do not consider these studies to be an activity that increases knowledge. It is my position they create ignorance. Paying "scientists" to do this type of work makes them insular and ignorant. Leading people to believe that this research is capable of providing them answers as to how they should improve their health makes them lazy and misinformed.
As I clearly indicated in my original post, I feel that we should be redirecting resources away from this wasteful "research" and putting better tools in the hands of the individual, to allow them to understand the particularities of their own needs.
For example, diabetics are given tools to measure their blood sugar, so they can make better informed decisions about their diet. This has been going on for decades.
I had an experience when I was younger and working in a call center for a period of time, and I was able to see patterns in my own biorhythms. I'd never been the sort of person to keep a journal, I'd certainly never have thought to rate my day on a scale of how I feel and track it on a chart, but my employers kept track of my performance, and I noticed that I'd have an off week every 6 weeks. Didn't seem to co-relate with anything in my external world, was just a pattern that was uniquely mine for reasons I don't claim to clearly understand.
But if I'd been provided with access to more sophisticated tools at the time, like my diabetic girlfriend was given, I might have learned something that improved my health.
So, I don't know what YOUR agenda is, but I guess one of my agendas is to prevent career "scientists" hoping to make a name for themselves as "the man with the answers" from hogging resources, dominating the discussion and keeping people ignorant as they live in their little insular little bubbles and pat themselves on the back for being so clever.
But, it goes deeper than that, really.
Imagine that you were going to sit down and design a diet for your chicken farm. You want to maximize meat production. If you increase the protein levels in your food, you get bigger, meatier chickens. But, there's a problem... some of the chickens will have a heart attack and die with these increased protein levels.
So, you make some charts, and you determine that if you increase it to 50%, chickens will start to die, but the weight of the dead chickens will be dwarfed by the increase in weight of those that survive. If you increase it to 80%, so many chickens will die that you have less meat than before you started. But, if you increase it to 65%, you will hit the sweet spot, where the overall amount of meat generated is maximized.
At no point do you actually take the time to observe any of the chickens and tailor their food intake to what you see. The individual chicken is irrelevant to the equation.
That is the underlying attitude I see in this study. It might serve the interest of enterprises that view humans as chickens, but it doesn't serve the interests of human beings. That actually makes me kind of angry.
This is begging the question:
"Do you still beat your wife."
And yes, that is what you're doing. Makes you look stupid.
Why are you begging the question?
I got in a serious car accident and spent the second half of the year recovering in the residence I'd already paid for without going to class. Then, for a lark, I got totally hammered and wrote the Calculus exam with my mates.
Aced the exam, passed Calculus despite having not gone to class at all or done a single assignment.
I still find it hilarious, but my mom was not particularly proud of me.
These types of studies are everywhere you look. There is only one consensus among them:
One size does not fit all.
These types of studies are a waste of time and resources. They are looking for something that does not exist.
The way to achieve progress is creating methodologies for individuals to use to understand what suits them as an individual, and designing and distributing tools to give them access to additional data to help them do so. This will lead to much larger strides in fighting poor health.