The only realistic way to fullfill all these requirements:
1) 100+ passwords
2) every password unique
3) every password good
4) no password stored or written down.
is to create an algorithm that only you know. For instance, the 3rd letter of the url + a pin + the inverse color of the company logo, etc...
That's simple enough but my problem is that as soon as I create one every 3rd website has some stupid password requirement that
won't allow it so I'm back to writing down all the exceptions.
The only realistic way to fullfill all these requirements:
Readers, take these "friend of a guy I met somewhere" urban myths with a truckload of salt. Even that guy that kept those girls locked up for years would try that "they was asking for it" thing if he could have gotten away with it.
He didn't day "friend of a friend", he was somewhat specific. I'll be even more specific. My friend in college who worked parttime at Denny's
and slept with a coworker there who already had a baby from another guy. He was 22 and she was 17. The grandmother turned them in and
he's now on the sexual offender's list for life. He also lost his main job as IT at the sheriff's office because of it. It was consentual sex and
she had a fricken baby but it's still listed as rape and he's on the same sexual predator's list with 50 year old men going after 12 year olds.
Problem hee is that everybody's forgotten what prisons were for. Not rehabilitation. That can be accomplished better and cheaper other ways. Renmember how much the US spends per prisoner. much more per person than welfare payments. In fact if they used that money for that instead, then onlky hardened criminals, Besides, sending someone to crime school isn't ther best rehab anyways. Well, the, Punishment? Or protecting society? The US model is based on punishment, with only a token nod to "protecting society". There's way better ways to punish criminals though, and if the prisons were used exclusively to protect society, we could tear the other half of them down. This is, in fact what they were originally for. To keep them away from society for safety's sake. The US model is based on punishment though, and creates a revolving door because of poorly drafted laws and kneejerk reactionismn on "getting tough on crime". Making more acts criminal isn't "getting tough on crime" however, but rather the opposite, and anyone who believes that has absolutely no education or understanding at all . Whatever. It's too late anyways. You make your bed you have to sleep in it.
Add to that the problem that the prison systems have lobbyists lobbying for mandatory sentences for non-violent crimes which is basically just free
money for them. I don't agree that it's too late though but I think the first step is to get rid of the lobbyists and/or change the incentives. For instance
instead of paying a prison just per head maybe give the prisons bonuses at the 1, 5, and 10 year mark for prisoners that stay out of the system. I read
a report by a professor that showed that you could greatly reduce the number of people in prison by doing whole family intervention with juveniles. It's
the classic dilbert problem though. It doubles the cost of Juvenile Hall in the short term and the savings don't show up for 5-10 years and when they do
they show up in a different department so although society overall benefits, it's hard to get something like this approved as it doesn't benefit Juvenile Hall
and it really doesn't benefit the prison system either as they actually lose prisoners so someone has to connect the dots and convince taxpayers to bite
the bullet and pay more now for a payoff in a completely different area later.
Well, they have to interface with the optic nerve. I'm pulling this from half-remembered biology lectures, but IIRC nobody is actually sure if the optic nerve can handle a broader spectrum input. It might work, it might compress the new expanded spectrum into the common perceived one, or it might just flip out and overload. We don't know.
Why would the optic nerve need to handle the broader spectrum? You could easily do the "nomalization" in software before
sending it to the optic nerve and even have the software autoswitch to "night vision" when ambient light gets low.
Traveling doesn't require much intelligence, basically it's just walking unless one happens to end up floating on a piece of wood. It's more about hunger.
Crossing an ocean, crossing a mountain, and surviving in the cold all require either intelligence or proper physical attributes.
Chimps, although highly intelligent, still aren't intelligent enough to cross a mountain and survive in the cold even though they
have the advantage of fur and put 1000 chimps on an island without food and it doesn't matter how hungry they get, they are
not getting off that island.
Groups probably were naturally isolated for long periods of time by geography and as intelligence increased so did the
ability to travel more and go into other enviroments. Once we became a "global" population all similiar species were
They do take saliva, just not all the time. DNA wasn't mentioned in the article. The contractor part is probably the biggest issue.
I think another big issue is the money. $7.9M might be change for the federal government but that's still a crapload of money.
What is the purpose of the study and even if you needed a little bit of data wouldn't a small crew driving around for a few
months give you the general idea for a fraction of the cost? I think big government starts to lose sight of reality when they drop
a few million here and a few million there where if they were really concerned about money could easily get it done for a
fraction of the cost.
I think it depends on what you're interested in. Most of the other sites I follow like newscientist.com and
machineslikeus.com although they have tech stuff also have alot more medical stuff. Google news also
has a tech section. I like slashdot. It's about as good as any for my interests and honestly advertisement
or not this article seems to fit the "news for nerds" if for no other reason that I find it interesting that
someone is selling an $80 app where the average price is probably closer to $2.
Yeah, that's great, but look at the real world. Where the government runs healthcare (UK, Canada etc) it's cheaper and more efficient.
But hey, don't let observable facts get in the way of your reasons.
Apparently you've never talked to the people in those countries who hate their systems
and their taxes or noticed how the people there who can afford it still come to the US for
Private industry is more efficient than government.
Yeah. It keeps healthcare costs down in the US and it worked brilliantly for UK rail services. And everyone benefits? Investors are not going to punt money in to something because they want to support the building of an efficient operation that'll benefit everyone. Most investors are looking for returns,
We have runaway healthcare costs because of government involvement not because of private industry. If the majority of people actually paid
their own medical bills you would see medical bill prices dropping the same way lasik, dentistry, and plastic surgery prices continue to fall.
Doctors couldn't stay in business if people had to pay cash at their current prices but instead of lowering their prices to something reasonable
prices continue to skyrocket because of upside down incentives put in place by the government.
I never said that investors wanted to build an efficient operation but industries with healthy competition force them to to be able to compete
that's why lasik continues to become safer and cheaper while in the medical world ruled by government incentives and subsidized healthcare
you can't even get a medical doctor to quote you a price.
Yeah, I thought about that when I posted. There are alot of capital intensive or otherwise unusual industry that wouldn't fit
a typical mold not to mention as yet unthought of industries but it was ment as one possible way of how to get rid of the idiotic
"too big to fail" mentality. Southwestern Bell deployed a slightly different strategy for the same purpose. I had a friend that
used to work there and every year they would give a "vital to the company" bonus to the most irreplacable employees. These
bonuses were large (I think his was almost 1 year salary) but were given on the condition that you train a second person to
do your job in case something happened to you. I wouldn't be opposed to the government implementing something like this
especially in areas where there is a single supplier of critical components that are needed to maintain our technological house
Private industry is more efficient than government.
I take it you've never experienced the joys of private water/sewer service. Locally, in Snohomish County the people have the choice between the Snohomish County Public Utility District or Puget Sound Energy for electricity. Because of the necessity of feeding as much profit as possible into shareholder dividends and executive salaries PSE's electrical service is more expensive, less reliable, and the equipment and lines are poorly maintained. For some odd reason, when given a choice almost everyone prefers to get their electricity from SnoPUD instead of PSE.
Although I think it makes perfect sense to privatize USPS and alot of other government agencies, I do not think water/sewer should be
privatized and doing so is bad for everyone and makes no sense. USPS, UPS, FedEx can all compete because they all are able to use
the same common infrastructure. The only way to do this with "water/sewer" would be to still have the government maintain the main
water lines or to lay multiple mainlines down every street so that each house has the option to tap each line. As you stated above with
people prefering SnoPUD, that's how it is suppose to work. People should move to the provider they prefer and the shoddy one should
eventually die off. That unfortunately doesn't happen if there is a defacto monopoly because one person owns the infrastructure so you
can't fairly compare the private water/sewer to private postal service.
Forcing people to compete by breaking them up is even more sadistic than simply making it hard for them to cooperate. When will this religion end?
So what do you suggest? You're the one who was complaining about private industry. Private industry is
more efficient than government. Most complaints I hear about the evils of capitalism are complaints about
very large fortune 500 companies. I was trying to give one possible solution that could be the best of both
worlds. Privatizing the USPS just makes sense not so someone can make a profit but so everyone benefits
from an efficient operation.
The too big to fail mentality was invented by the government and corporations. Let them fail. I can name at least a dozen car manufacturers
that no longer exists and we are probably better for it. If you're worried about a company being too big to fail, split it apart or set a maximum
size of a company. The splitting up of the telephone company was probably one of the better moves that the government did but unfortunately
they have basically merged back together. Setting a maximum size would prevent that from happening. Something like if gross revenue
exceeds $1B then all profits are taxed at 95%. Companies would immediately split themselves up. I think one of the problems is these big
corporate or government entities lose sight of reality and the average joe can't compete with someone who has the strength of 10 million men
but more government is not the solution. The solution is to reduce the power of the government AND the power of the corporation so that a
reasonable size group of people (say 10k activists) actually have a fighting chance.
"Both are currently weak and can only get better. "
I'm sold! Take my money now!
What money? The examples I mentioned are free and will likely remain free so
microsoft's high-end projects are having to compete with both "free" and "good enough"