kutkloon7

You're right. If you choose a weak password, nothing can save you. This holds in any case, so this is not specifically an argument to this use. Let's do some math to see if your argument about bruteforcing holds stake (spoiler: it doesn't).

Let's say you're master password only uses letters, numbers, and special characters. Just counting keys on my keyboard, there are 94 such characters. You should pick a random sequence as master password (very important).

Let's say you use the Antminer S9 (which can compute 1 gigahash per joule). For ease of analysis, let's say you can recognize the master password instantly. Also, say we're paying $0.2 per kwh. Then we can define the average cost c of finding the master password as a function of the master password length l: c(l) = 94^l/(1.8*10^10)

c(5) is about 40 cents, c(6) about 40 dollars c(8) is more than 300k, c(12) = 26e12

In comparison, the estimated amount of money in the world (in 2009) is 52e9 dollars. By the way, this is if you use a single SHA256 hash. You can make the hash arbitrarily expensive by iterating (computing h(h(h(master_pass)))).

The one and only argument against using a master password that is used to derive passwords is the single point of failure. If someone catches you typing your master password on video, you're pretty much fucked. But I guess this is the same for password managers.

True! So you have to choose a good master password and use an expensive hash.

On the other hand, if you take any other approach, you place either confidence in the security of a service (1password), or you store passwords somewhere. In both cases, you have a problem when you can not retrieve the passwords anymore.

If 1password is hacked or simply offline, or your phone gets stolen, you basically lost access to all services.

Does this also work when you use someone else's phone or computer?

You can add something (e.g. a number) to the end to make a different password. The idea is that you have a _very_ secure master password (so bruteforcing it is not practical - to make this even more true you could hash a huge number of times instead of just once) and never change it.

There is still some truth in your arguments. I'm curious what you consider a good alternative?

I can't say that the study fully convinces me (I agree with szemet, not all counterarguments are carefully refuted).

There is however, a very different standard in the US, compared to other countries. In the Netherlands (and other countries), I am considered to have a normal or even slightly athletic posture. In the US, people consider me to be very skinny.

It seems like they actually

The problem with a password manager is that you don't have easy access to one when you're on a different machine.

A better way is to use a scheme that hashes your username, service name, and master password to generate a password. A problem is that this doesn't always comply with the arbitrary demands on your password.

This is why these arbitrary demands need to die: they make the only way to securely and conveniently access accounts from different devices impossible.

"Americans have an impoverished and immature conception of technology, one that fetishizes innovation as a kind of art and demeans upkeep as mere drudgery."

Pretty much hits the nail on the head, although I want to note this does not exclusively apply to Americans (but maybe a bit more than Europeans; technology is often a lot cheaper in the US: it is not uncommon that the amount of dollars paid for an item is lower than the amount of euros, even though euros are worth quite a bit more).

It is especially bad for phones. Many people I who are (almost annoyingly) aware of the environment buy a new phone every year.

I am guilty myself too. My current phone is about two years old. It has a full HD screen, a luxury that I don't even need on my laptop (about half of the time, I work on a 1440x900 thinkpad). And, to be honest, it is getting quite sluggish. When I open dropbox or tinder, I experience a delay up to 10 seconds, which is quite ridiculous (it especially bothers me that software seems to get slower, more bloated, and more abstract and complicated). People's first reaction to hearing this is "Just buy a new phone, man". I shouldn't be, but I am indeed considering this.

But refinement doesn't seem accurate, as it implies that there are changes being made, while this is not necessarily the case.

Not really related to the technological side of the story, but I had a horrible experience with the international trains from Budapest. So they don't need a broken electronic system to provide a horrible service ;)

My parents went to buy a ticket at the counter. The lady behind the counter didn't speak English (which is totally OK). Her only communication was a 'go away' movement with her hand, after which she ignore us and signaled for the next customer in line to come to her.

Luckily a colleague of her helped us and gave us careful instruction on the time and platform of the train. After we took the train and sat for a few hours, the conductor of the train came and notified that our tickets were invalid. We argued for some time since the lady behind the counter told us this was the right train. The conductor became mad and told us that we had to pay him 50 euros in cash for some unknown reason (presumably to buy a ticket for the train we were on, but his English was very limited). Note that this was a normal train and there was no shortage of seats. In the end, we chose to get out at the next stop, and take the next train, which was about 3 hours later.

While I'm not exactly bilingual, I would like to teach my children (when I have them) multiple languages, just because I think that the potential for learning (and especially for learning languages) is at its maximum during childhood.

However, I'm not quite sure what the best languages would be. I want to give them some exposure to a broad spectrum of languages. I know that the best way to learn a language is to actually use it. In this light, I'm wondering what the best balance between casually exposing them to a huge number of languages and learning them just one extra language really well would be.

True. People from Switzerland or Luxembourg often speak 3 or more languages fluently. A lot of other people in Europe speak their native language and a bit of English as well.

I don't feel Americans appreciate the luxury of speaking a language that is basically the lingua franca of the Western world.

Also, sometimes I feel that many people don't realize that there is a wealth of information that is in Latin, Greek, Russian, or Mandarin. What's not English doesn't exist for them. In this way, the world is still divided in some sense.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted... Seems relevant information to me.

I'm having the same experience. I have been working on my thesis for the last year. My university is in a different city, and everyone working on something related is in another country. This made it hard for me to make progress and this has had the effect of me isolating myself even more (I haven't made enough progress to have a beer with friends and not feel bad about myself).

Although I have never been sick for the last year, I recognize all the other symptoms to some degree. For an assessment, I took an IQ test a while ago. I used to be really good at number sequences, acing them or at least getting 95% right. I think I got about half of them this time, which was quite shocking.

Once I finish this thesis (my supervisor keeps trying to convince me to postpone my graduation - a student working on a very similar problem has spent more than 2.5 years now, and has not graduated yet) I want to spend more time on my social life again.

Why is it better than C(++) for this?

IMHO the patents are usually not narrow, but overly broad, and they should not have been registered in the first place.

While reading this article it gradually appeared to me that it just HAD to be about UK English, not US English.

From a legal point of view you are completely right.

Personally I find the whole idea of IP to be a little too strict. It is possible for me to come up with an idea completely independently and still get sued because someone got the same idea and decided to make it his IP.

Some big tech companies have the same strategy as patent trolls, and for some reason this is a much more widely accepted practice.

If such a spec was released before LaTeX was released, it might have stood a chance. Now everyone is used to LaTeX, no-one will switch, because there is simply too little benefit.

While I appreciate the effort that has gone into it, and I can definitely see the merit in some cases, there are some awkward unicode characters that you need to use; very inconvenient.

A better question would be: Should programming be liberated from the von Neumann style?

This also has to do with browser compatibility. Vanilla Javascript sucks so hard because it's so difficult to write non-trivial stuff that just works. This is the whole raison d'être for JQuery. This is mainly because the different browsers don't coordinate and there is no official standard. It should have been obvious from the start that this is a recipe for disaster.

Well, if a software bug leads to data corruption it is not really "allowed" as well. It is quite amazing that there are not more bugs like this. Intel spends an insane amount of money on very large teams of very smart people to work on these insanely complicated systems.

I don't think this is sustainable, and I think that massive arrays of relatively simple processors. First, we will need a culture shift that learns programmers to program concurrent programs from the start, and this will take a lot of time (because technology moves a lot faster than culture).

Or you just encrypt sensitive files and stash it in a folder somewhere. The chance is practically zero they will find it.

?

Can you explain that? I can't see how different tab settings would mess up formatting. Unless you use tabs to match the position of things over two different lines (which is abusing tabs), or mix spaces and tabs, tabs should work fine.

"The model estimated that using spaces instead of tabs leads to a 8.6% higher salary".

So the model actually predicts causality, instead of correlation? That's amazing. I'll start using spaces instead of tabs today and I will ask for a 8.6% raise.

According to this model, I should get it!

Let me be a bit pessimistic amd ignorant here.

People who want to use an FPGA should learn VHDL or verilog. There have been a lot of projects to make C compile to VHDL/verilog, and it's generally accepted that it does not work very well.

What is the advantage of using Go for the same purpose?

Nowadays, programming is much more complex than it used to be (unless you consider toy programming languages). For me, visual feedback was always a key factor in the things that I made. When I started, there was no top down or bottom up. You just started programming, and you actually understood what was happening because it was not that complicated.

Let me give you an example. QBasic is the first language that I learned. Suppose you want to draw a white pixel in the left upper corner on the screen. To do this, you can do: SCREEN 13 PSET (0, 0), 15

If you understand this and for-loops it is trivial to fill the screen with a color. Then the next step is to make the color of the pixel dependent on the position. I made some wonderful graphical stuff with this (rotozoomers, plasma, fire effects...).

Now, if I want to do this in C(++), I probably can, but it will take me at least an hour of research. Same thing for C#, Java, Haskell, and so on.

This is not a completely fair comparison since QBasic ran in DOS and there was no need to summon a window, but that is exactly my point: things keep getting more complex. To plot a colored pixel on the screen in QBasic, you have to know about pixels, screens and colors. To do this in a more modern environment, chances are you have to pick the right API and understand all abstractions it introduces (probably including windows, graphical contexts, buffers...). The trend seems to be to ever more abstract, complex, and powerful frameworks.

If you are already a programmer, this is a gradual progress and it is feasible to keep track of everything, but for new programmers it takes a looooong time to get up to date with all the new abstractions that people have come up with (and I think are not always that important to start programming).

Now I'm not saying that we should not introduce abstractions or frameworks or implying that DOS graphics were better than today's system with windows. I'm just saying that these advances come at a high cost, and I don't know if there is a solution.

I don't think that particular solution would be good from a user experience point of view, but it is indeed a nice idea to filter out domains that you have received emails from (and are not deleted or in the spam folder).

However, there are ways around this too. I think the fundamental mistake was to allow (all?) unicode strings as urls. However, I can't come up with an elegant solution on the spot (since it would be unfair and unpractical to use ASCII for this).

Is it better substantiated if I post a source?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-15/1746-american-adult...