Now what the goddam hell did I do to get "-1, Flamebait"!?

Goddam stoned moderators. Wake the hell up! Jesus Gates Christ!

Evidence of "lie" please.

> Only five percent of respondents didn't know the characteristics of a secure password, with the majority of respondents understanding that passwords should contain uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers and symbols.

These requirements profoundly _discourage_ secure passwords. The difficulty of remembering them, and typing them well at a hidden password field, strongly encourage storage of passwords locally in cut&paste text windows or in local plaintext password storage. The current champion application for this security failure is AWS, which stores complex randomized alphanumeric strings which _no one_ can remember, forcing their default inclusion in plaintext local user fules or even hardcoded in saved wrapper scripts.

I'm afraid that robust password generation was much better explained and documented in an old XKCD cartoon, https://xkcd.com/936/

What form of "properly hashed and securely stored" would make a five character numeric-only password even remotely acceptable?

Mind you, I don't disagree with your premise - The problem here has nothing to do with end-users, and everything to do with expecting them to remember over a hundred distinct "secure" passwords. But that glaring flaw aside (which leads people to use the least secure password a site will let them, and reuse it at every site they can), there *is* still such a thing as a pathetically weak password.

We've all seen, and can debate the exact accuracy of the relevant XKCD strip, but the general idea holds true - We'd all do a hell of a lot better to use memorable three to five word phrases, than trying to squeeze something we can almost remember into leetspeak with an extra random character or two tacked on at the end.

G the F out of here!

A Google login, whether you get it via gmail or "G Suite", ties into all of the Android apps and keeps search history and integrates it into other Google products, and runs synchronization of most app data so they can see a great deal of what you do on the phone. About the worst that you can do is turn on device management. It will take about two days to turn off and during that time it will do its very best to force your email users to put their devices under your control. After that you apparently even have control over booting of the device. It's enough to make me want to support another open phone. Mozilla just gave up the ghost on that.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

-

My stand on that would be that you're making a stupid argument that has nothing to do with climate change.

I was actually using Google for Work as a spam filter service, but they have thrown so much other stuff in that spreads sticky fingers all over your Android system. Back to an Open Source solution. Who runs a good crowdsourced spam filter these days?

The legal system tends to interpret certain words certain ways. It becomes "case history", which establishes conventions in the legal industry. Whether that's good or bad is another matter.

The 3.5" DD ones weren't so bad, but the HD ones were terrible.

Agreed. The 1.44 MB format was EXTREMELY unreliable. I kept trying different brands, and they all sucked.

I started reformatting them to down 720 KB to make the "bits fatter'.

In general with floppies, I always tried to make backups on 2 different disks for anything important. It became a habit. It's probably good advice for any backup medium. Shit happens.

Some in the industry have argued that cutting the cord doesn't actually save you money if you subscribe to a bunch of streaming services like Netflix, HBO, and so on.

Well, of course, the cable co's try to shove bundling up your bundle because it's more profitable for them.

A good many people, including me, want to ONLY pay for the specific content and channels we want. Bundling has been a crappy deal for us.

Yes some random person claims a company is trying to destroy evidence while filing suit against them. No ulterior motive what so ever. No sireee.

Common sense would be realising that you don't need the device to file a claim against the company and realising that if they can't produce the device in court that it would work very VERY strongly in your favour.

But oh hey look corporation = evil so let's just throw common sense out the window and side with the guy making the fishy claim.

Yeah laughable. The world doesn't work that way. You don't need the device as evidence in your suit against them, and it will actually work against you in this regard. All you're doing is pissing away your chance at settlement and compensation.

Something that will get you let off for intentionally running a stop sign. Unfortunately being inattentive on the road falls under reckless driving and is against the law in its own right and the police officer really won't give a shit what he writes the fine out for providing it's an equal amount.

Exactly the same here: After I was woken up from sleep at 2AM by an Amber Alert for a child that purportedly missing 200 miles away (who turned out to be with her father) I turned the alerts OFF.

However, in their favor, the adjustments to the alert system also are going to improve the geographical targetting, so that they will be more narrowly broadcast to just the areas affected:
http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...