On Passwords
Choosing '123' or 'password' for your password is about as clever as leaving the key under the mat. No one would ever think of looking there! The Maverick Philosopher lays it down that choosing a password is something like the opposite of naming your kid. Just as 'Dweezil' and 'Crapstorm' are poor choices for your baby, so is 'Charlie' for your checking account -- especially if you or your child is named 'Charlie.' Here is a list of the ten most popular passwords.
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Monday July 10, 2006 at 10:59am
Well, I suppose it would if some fool were dedicated to figuring out one of my passwords and worked at it constantly.
I suppose that if someone were trying to perform a years-long brute-force crack on you, attempting to log in with every single configuration of letters and numbers within normal password length, there could conceivably be a point, since if you left your password the same they'd be guaranteed to get it eventually, but if you changed it during their search, there'd be a chance of them missing it. But the chances of somebody dedicating that kind of time (and I haven't calculated, but it would take a long time indeed) are pretty much nonexistent, and they'd get caught anyway.
At my work, we've got this online timesheet thing, which forces us to change our password every few weeks, and won't let us re-use any of the last three. So far, the only effect has been that I forget my stinking password all the time, sometimes resulting in me getting locked out. Of course, I can just write it down and leave it on my desk to get around this annoyance, but that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
qibzbc5 Quentin immerses before zealous Betty civilises fives.
What is needed is a philosophical mnemonic generator. Example:
AvftrS&Z Adorno's vitriol fails to refute Sein und Zeit
Get to it, programmers!
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.