Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Not Insecure (Score 4, Insightful) 73

by pavon (#47712509) Attached to: 51% of Computer Users Share Passwords

The purpose of security is to prevent unauthorized people from accessing the account. There are tons of accounts that are legitimately shared, and there is nothing wrong with sharing passwords in those situations, if the account doesn't have any technical mechanism to allow for multiple users/profiles on a single account. For example bank accounts, utilities, Netflix, Hulu, wireless router administration, all have been shared accounts with my wife (some have since added profiles, but not all).

Furthermore, even with accounts that we keep separate, like email, there are useful reasons to share the password, like when my wife is away from internet at work and wants me to print a boarding pass that was emailed to her. Sure I could snoop through her email, but I don't just like I could snoop through her purse or journal, but I don't.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 662

by drinkypoo (#47712321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'm a different AC, but I think you made his point. "You are unlikely to see another human being for days" in those hundreds (is it really thousands?) of square miles precisely "because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there."

Yes, I did. I also made the point that his point is irrelevant. We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population. It's not that their wishes should be ignored, exactly; I believe that creation and protection of rights is a valid pursuit. But "It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other," is still a completely valid statement. Virtually nobody lives in a situation where they won't see other people. Someone always turns up, if only for a sample of something. Maybe you. And frankly, there really is nowhere like you describe in the USA, either. There's a number of large private ranches of thousands of acres; those guys often have stories of trespassers. And a large portion of the country is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which regularly portions big sections of it off for military and police training, and which patrols it regularly and investigates fires, target shooters in hunting season and hunters out of season, and the like. Then there's the big state parks, which are full of state park rangers on horses and in Jeep of various types, and IIRC Chevy trucks. They manage to cover quite a bit of ground.

So yes, it is virtually impossible to not run into people. You have to go to significant lengths, especially since people are actually looking for people in those supposedly empty places. Sure, you could get lost in the asscrack of some mountain somewhere, but even getting there is beyond the reach of many people. Only a tiny slice of the world population even lives away from someplace where you can avoid seeing people for more than a few minutes at a time.

Comment: Re:well.. (Score 1) 15

by PopeRatzo (#47709221) Attached to: A statement to ponder

At Wired, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has posted his take on net neutrality. He lays the problem at the feet of the large ISPs.

The argument was that the early progressives were not acting out of moral beliefs. I showed that's not true.

The Scotsman can't protect you from The Federalist's misrepresentation. It's funny that you would cite a logical fallacy in order to defend an ad hominem attack ("Progressives were never moral!")

Comment: Re:Did I miss the breakthrough? (Score 1) 235

by roc97007 (#47708005) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I'm beginning to think that Tokamak is a way to funnel tax dollars into researcher's pockets. If we ever do achieve practical commercial fusion, we may look back at the Tokamak like modern pilots look back at the manned ornithopter attempts of the 1800's.

But if the Tokamak ever is made to be commercially viable, we're probably talking about a few gigantic power generators, which would mean we probably need to do something about that decades-old power line infrastructure.

Comment: Re:Ready in 30 years (Score 3, Interesting) 235

by roc97007 (#47707951) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

We all hope not. And past performance is not an indication of future results. (Which is a good thing, in this case.) But the past several decades have pretty much beaten all the enthusiasm out of many of us.

Practical fusion would be a complete game changer in many different areas. Cheap enough, it would not only pretty much kill the oil industry, but may even make the "green" energy industry redundant. (Solar, wind, tides, geothermal.) Dirt cheap electricity, commonly available, would make electric vehicles a lot more interesting. Cheap centralized power would probably reverse the current tendency to diversify power and make upgrading our aging electric power infrastructure a priority. And so forth. Fusion is a very disruptive technology.

Maybe that's the real reason we don't have it yet.

Comment: Re:Who needs oil? (Score 4, Insightful) 235

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#47707849) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

Fusion would break the stranglehold of petro-exporting countries in the Middle East as well as belligerent exporters like Russia and Iran.

Then? The Banking vampire elite will need to generate new, ethnically-rationalized hate-conflict to keep us all at each other's throats - instead of removing their boot from our collective face.

The bugs you have to avoid are the ones that give the user not only the inclination to get on a plane, but also the time. -- Kay Bostic

Working...