If you had people generate a four word pass phrase, it's quite likely that most of them would contain only words from a relatively small subset of the English language.

Which is why the computer would generate the phrase.

2Correcthorse4batteryStapple!

Varying capitalization, and optionally separating the 4 words with 3 character symbols adds: 2*2*2*2*90*90*90*5*4*3 possible permutations: 6.9e8

Now that's not bad, and it definitely is more secure than the plain 4 words. BUT:

Assuming 200,000 words in the dictionary. Simply adding 3 more words to the end gives you 8e15 additional permutations.

8e15 is a LOT bigger than 6.9e8

And now we are at 7 symbols either way.

Remembering 3 more words is both easier and ridiculously more secure too.

Peppering a passphrase with difficult to remember symbols is missing the point. If you want more security, just add another random word or two. Either method increases its brute force complexity, but perhaps counterintuitively, adding a few words is far more secure than mangling the pass phrase with a few symbols.

4 symbols chosen randomly from a dictionary of ~200,000 by a computer not by you because you won't choose words randomly.

that makes it a 1 in 200000^4 to guess... or 1.6 x 10^21

compare that to an 8 character password also randomly generated. Passwords which are drawn from a set of around 90 symbols. (50 letters including upper and lower case, 10 digits, and ~30 symbols)

that's 90^8 or a measly 4.3 x10^15

a 4 word randomly chosen password from a dictionary is by far the better password, and much easier to remember too.

An 11 character password of completely random gibberish is about equivalent, to 4 random dictionary words. Good luck remembering somthing like `oN{/QM9PKb

which is no better than:

scald obsolescent period postpone

That isn't to say that all dishonesty is necessarily negative, but I challenge anyone to think of a single instance of "privacy" that isn't also "dishonest" if you assume that withholding the truth is also being dishonest.

Why would I ever accept such an idiotic assumption.

By your line of reasoning wearing underwear counts as "dishonest". Having your blinds closed is "dishonest". Peeing behind the bush instead of in front of it where i can see you is "dishonest". Keeping your bank PIN code a secret is "dishonest". Stubbing your toe and thinking "ouch" without saying it is "dishonest".

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

Only a complete idiot would categorize any of that as dishonesty. Sure we can all agree that not telling your girlfriend that you banged the neighbor should count as dishonest as you've breached the implicit agreement that is likely in effect to be mutually faithful and then concealed this fact, but simply electing not to volunteer an estimate of how many ounces you urinated this morning is not "dishonesty" by any reasonable stretch.

Well, let's see .. it has a CPU, memory, can do input, processing, and output (the Von Neumann definition). It's capable of doing Turing complete things, and writing code written for it.

And my OLD cellphone... not my new fancy galaxy s3... I'm tallking my old Motorola StarTAC.

Apparently that was a PC too. It even had some sort of Java and a hideous WAP browser as i recall... still miles better than what you could do with an Apple II though am i right?

So why didn't we see any articles in the 90s about how Motorola was a top 5 PC manufacturer I wonder?

So, tell us, what aspects of a phone or tablet make it not a computer in your mind? They'll both run rings around an old 486.

Because the term "personal computer" means something more than meeting the computer science definition of being capable of computing and being owned / operated by a person.

Why aren't phones or tablets personal computers? Because they are severely restricted in terms of capability relative to a contemporary personal computer.

But yeah, giving women freedom of choice means some women choosing things you don't like

What made you think I objected to women choosing to be booth babes?

I am disputing the idea that many women actually are "choosing" to be booth babes in the sense that it is a positive choice they are making vs it being the 'least objectionable option' they have available.

And I object to calling "taking the least objectionable option" some sort of "freedom of expression" and an example of women defining their own femininity for themselves.

So anybody will do anything for a paycheck? Nobody has any kind of personal level beneath which they will not stoop?

How does this help your argument? Anyone making choices along that boundary line is doing so because they have to, not because they want to. To try and talk about "freedom" in that context is absurd -- if they had actual freedom they'd choose something they wanted to do.

If for example they wanted to show of their bodies then instead of being booth babes they'd head to the beach.

Where they can do what they want, dress how they want, and they don't have to conform to any one elses standards of attractiveness to be there.

If you want to see women who are defining femininity for themselves... go to the beach. Everyone there chose to be there, and chose to wear what they are wearing.

Many girls probably wouldn't choose to do that

Nuff said?

but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time.

Like actual modelling? Fashion shows. Magazine covers, cover girl for a lipstick brand, the sort of thing models actually aspire to?

But not booth babes.

Some girls like to show off their body.

And I don't dispute that. However, I will again point out that the cross section of women who like to show off their bodies includes a lot of women who could not get a job as a booth babe because they do not meet the 'standards of attractiveness' imposed on them.

Which circles round back to my argument that the booth babe job (and other 'model' class jobs) is not an example of women 'expressing themselves' and 'defining femininity for themselves'.

Mod this up! Really, is there anything more to be said?

Just because someone chose to be a model doesn't mean they look forward to going to work as a booth babe. It doesn't mean they endorse the job, the working conditions, or anything else. Its a job, they have the skills for it, and they happen to fit the EXTERNALLY IMPOSED definitions of 'attractiveness'.

Just because out of the jobs they were able to get they picked 'booth babe' that does not represent some lofty ideal concerning letting women define what it means to be feminine for themselves.

I personally know a very independent, very intelligent geek women who has in the past and intends in the future to work as a stripper, because she enjoys it and it makes her feel good about her body.

And I really don't see how that is at all relevant to the conversation. I don't dispute that you have a friend who likes being a stripper.

The women you find at booths are models. This is their chosen profession. Why should you denigrate them for it?

How many of them would show up for work as a booth babe if there wasn't a paycheck? I highly doubt many would.

Calling it their 'chosen profession' is absurd. As far as modelling gigs go "booth babe" isn't exactly what most models aspire to.

And more importantly did they set the standard of attractiveness to qualify as a model to get the booth babe job? Absolutely Not.

They happen to fit (and likely work at maintaining their fit) to an external view of femininity imposed on them and are taking advantage of that to make a living. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but I am disputing that it represents some sort high brow freedom of self expression or liberation, because it is nothing of the sort.

And if I decide it means running around in a miniskirt and pom poms, well... screw you.

And if you decide to do that on your own time, I don't have any criticism of it.

Me, if I lived in a world where I didn't need money, I'd still do what I do for a living for the enjoyment of doing it.

How many people would get up in the morning, with the actual freedom to decide how they want to spend their time instead of being constrained to get a paycheck, and decide to be a booth-babe?

You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes. Their might be a few and that's fine, but it wouldn't be most of them, not by a longshot. And to top it off many of the women who might freely choose to be a 'booth babe' probably couldn't get hired as one due to not living up to the standards of femininity and attractiveness set by OTHERS.

So much for calling the choice to be a booth babe "SELF EXPRESSION".

And how dare someone choose a job based on those factors. Those sluts!

Sure but lets not pretend they are "defining their own femininity" here. That's all I'm saying.

And the fact that they are choosing it does not qualify as an endorsement of the job or the working conditions or what it stands for.

They need money. It pays money. There is nothing deeper than that.

Just as a guy who takes an under the counter construction job that violates all kinds of labor laws, and all kinds of safety regulation is not making some sort of personal statement endorsing those conditions. Its just a paycheck.

If so, then so should these women, for themselves.

Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.

So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck?

No not me personally, but as a society yes, that's precisely what we do. For example, we set safety regulations even though there are plenty of people who would take a job that did not meet those safety standards. Should we let companies exploit that too?

We also prohibit many forms of sexual harassment now that many women used to endure. I suppose they were they just "expressing their femininity" when they chose to continue to work feed and support their families instead of making a stand about what they wouldn't tolerate in the workplace.

Recently some countries are starting to regulate models to promote better body image for regular women, and prevent the models themselves to subject themselves to starvation and other self abuse to attain the "desired weight".

If we're a free society, then every woman should feel free to define that for themselves...

Is that what you think 'scantily clad booth babes' are? Its free women deciding for themselves how to define their femininity? Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

I'm finding it hard to swallow that there are any women out there looking to define their own femininity for themselves who ended up deciding that the best way to express their femininity is "scantily clad booth babe"

I'm pretty confident the women who have that option open to them aren't doing any lofty self-definition. Its a paycheck. And its better hours, working conditions, and pay than their other options.

I have a skill set. This company will pay me 1M for it, that one for 1.5M. I choose the 1.5M. I work there 6 consecutive years.

So far so good.

In that time I increase revenue by 300%, stock price doubles, everyones happy, and I even got a boost to 1.9M 18 months ago.

Now lets take a diversion... lets say you are the CEO at say, JP Morgan, where under your skilled leadership the company is participating in massive fraud. When the fraud bubble bursts, revenues drop drastically, and the bank needs a federal bailout to stay solvent and operational, meahwhile the share price slides from $55 to $15, and nobody is happy.

You've now established that you are not good at what you do, you are reckless, criminal, and ought to be in jail.

You still keep your job though, and are not only paid an exorbitant salary, but bonuses too for your performance, and if you ever leave you will have plenty of open doors at other companies.

The very definition of market forces indeed.

To have a Win 8 tile you apparently need to be in the store which means paying 30% and following their rules which are nearly identical to Apple's.

Except we don't actually know those rules are non-negotiable. You are assuming this is the case.

Why should Apple go through Windows store to have a tiled application on Windows 8?

Which apple application are you referring too here? An imaginary hypothetical one doesn't count. Apple doesn't sell any windows software. The only software they even distribute for windows is itunes/quicktime which is free.

Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. They jus tlook like hypocrites.

They'd only be hypocrites if they refuse to negotiate with large companies that want to sell popular software that costs hundreds of dollars through the app store.

30% cuts make sense for $1 to $5 apps from vendors who have no infrastructure. They don't make sense for autocad and adobe CS or Microsoft Office etc.

But we have no evidence that microsoft is completely inflexible on rates for large partners who wish to sell expensive software in their store. So they aren't hypocrites.