If you only want to pay taxes for things that you will benefit from, then there is nothing more to talk about. It's selfishness at it's prime.

Now you have a stable job and a home. If your life ever took a turn for the worst, I bet you would feel differently.

I obviously am. I'm trying to make America a more equal place. The reason why the higher income people should pay more taxes is exactly that reason, a way to level the field. The thing is, they are very good at dodging taxes. And say they pay 13% and feel proud about it...

I read that number in a book. I might be wrong since it was a long time ago. Still, the priciple applies.

There are studies that show that anything over a certain limit (I think something in the lines of over 70000 a year) money stops being a motivation to work harder and stars being a luxury. I do not agree that it should be more than they need, but more than they can conceivably spend on anything normal while others starve. I do consider computer normal, same as a good house or a good car, but a 20ft yatch is not normal and no one should have one for pleasure while people starve.

But hey, that's me. You truly think that the billions spent on taxes by the rich will create jobs? They might create jobs oversees where they invest, but very little of that stays in America. That, and new mansions, but very few jobs. Less jobs than a strong middle class can create (more people consuming, more production is needed, more jobs are created).

The problem with the kindle is that it is extremely easy to ruin by a backpack with books. I've had 2 die on me that way, so I'm guessing he needs a hard case more than that :\

Since you mention entropy, the entropy for the english language is around 1.1 bits per character (average), which is extremely low. Passphrase attacks, especially ones that use common english sentences (like song lyrics) are extremely weak by today's standards. Passphrases can be secure if they are long and/or random enough, but if you're gonna have to memorize a random sequence of words, why not memorize a damn password?

Your last sentence sums up my whole point :P. I was attacking the op's method, not passphrases. If your algorithm is secret and good enough, then they are extremely safe.

the wikipedia article kind of sums it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passphrase#Security

If you use passphrases of music lyrics or any sentence that makes sense, then you are particularly vulnerable. Not saying passphrases can't be safe (long ones, with enough words, can - especially randomized words), but the method he described (music lyrics) is extremely weak.

It obviously can, and there is nothing wrong with using mnemonics to remember a complicated (normal) password, but the lyrics to your favorite song (or any song you listen to) are not secure in any way or form.

That's obvious, but I was complaining about the way he gets his passwords, claiming that the fact that he ends up with 80+ characters is real security. It just isn't, the search space for phrases is smaller than all the arrangements of letters, symbols, etc, you can get with 10 characters,

Just the fact that lyrics are used immensely reduces the search space. The length is only perceived security, not real security...

That is not true. It has been proven that passphrases can be weaker than passwords, simply because words usually follow each other in an ordered pattern.

You'll be safe from brute force attacks, but not any attack that adds intelligence to the mix. And if the person cracking your password knows it uses music lyrics you love, you'll be even more at risk since it only has to test for the songs you like.

What you just described is NOT safety.

I think what is meant was that the tablet business model is different from the phone's. A phone is sold as is, with exorbitant prices if not subsidized by a carrier. This table is sold probably at the price it costs to make or even less, since it is supposed to make money by the use of google's store.

And for google to make money on it, they have to guarantee (somewhat) that you'll be using their services. And that's why these are different than phones, most brands provide easy to root Android phones, since they don't expect to make money off them - and it also saves them some warranty money, since rooting voids that. I highly doubt this table will be anything like that.

So, no, OSS on Android phones is not the same as the tablet. It wasn't the same with kindle fire, it won't be the same with this.

I see this getting thrown out a lot, and I've actually been responsible for using it a few times.

The big problem with that argument is not what you (the geek) can do with it's phone, it's what common people do. The success is measured with the sales of the 99% of the people that cannot do that (and it's harder than installing windows - you first have to root the phone, get into recovery, etc etc).

This is where apple shines. If an OS is available, it'll be available for every phone that supports it. Google does the same with the nexus line but big companies don't.

But you got one thing straight. The path for Android's success has to be platform independence for (most of) the OS. Windows works fine on any machine (even macs), Any version of android should run on any Android that follows a certain specification.

For that to happen, standards have to be made. Android should be able to see what hardware was there and download the optimized drivers by itself, for example. But this is all kind of utopic, so... No, I stopped doing anything about it (on my Desire) on 2.3. It's not worth the hassle to get Gingerbread running here.

I see your point, but I disagree. I consider it better to have the webserver running slowly than having it crash because it ran out of memory. To do that might be a choice, but you could just go here ( http://unixfoo.blogspot.pt/2007/11/linux-performance-tuning.html ).