This is the type of content that the Internet needs more of, and not just about religion.

It’s 2007. There’s absolutely no excuse for websites today to not allow special characters in their passwords. Whether you use a memory scheme or an encrypted database application for generating and storing your passwords, it’s highly annoying when you come across a site that requires you to lower your password security standards based on character length or complexity.

Few things are more annoying then using your regular algorithm for building a password (one that uses upper, lower, numbers, and special characters) only to have the site tell you that you need to dumb it down in order for it to take it. And it’s even worse for those using password programs that auto-generate extremely long and complex passwords. Having a site tell you your security is “too good” is simply unacceptable.

So after being bothered by this one too many times I blogged about it and created a post in the BBR Security forum asking for sites that have this flaw. Here’s the list we’ve come up with so far:

Digg ! Suntrust Bank Chase Bank Verizon.net Wells Fargo Bank Sovereign Bank Americanexpress.com BB&T NASA Credit Union Space Coast Credit Union Earthlink Cafepress.com Equifax.com Progressive.com Merrill Lynch

[ Please contact me with additions and corrections/deletions ]

The ones that stand out are the financially-oriented sites, obviously, but the fact that Digg doesn’t allow special characters just blows my mind (Reddit does). Surely one can make an argument that passwords are weak anyway, that password length is the most important issue, and that most sites have lockout features, etc., but ultimately the arguments for not implementing this are lame for a simple reason:

It’s trivial to implement and sites only have to do it once. So even if the security gain is minimal there’s just no good reason not to do it.

The bottom line comes down to this: people should be able to use advanced memory-based techniques or password applications that generate very long, complex passwords and have them work everywhere. Sites that force users to lower their standards should be exposed and asked to modernize.

So if you use one of these sites, do the Internet a favor and contact customer service and file a complaint. With enough attention I think we can get at least a few of these to do the right thing.:

So the recent Virginia Tech shooting incident is causing many to once again re-evaluate gun laws in the United States. The liberal slant, of course, is that the shooter was too easily able to purchase handguns, and that something should be done to make guns harder to attain. This is horribly misguided, and I am going to tell you why.

Ideal vs. Real

Liberal ideology is largely based on how things should be, not how they are. I agree that people shouldn’t have to carry guns, and I agree that people should consider other people’s religious beliefs to be equally valid to their own. Those are nice ideas, but they’re kind of like Newtonian physics: they don’t hold up well under extremes.

One example of something that absolutely should not happen is abortion. Ask a liberal if they think we should kill babies and they’ll get quite upset. They’ll very effectively argue that it’s not that they think it’s ideal, but that it’s an issue of greater good considering the unfortunate reality we live in.

I totally agree, and that’s why I’m pro-abortion. What liberal gun-control advocates don’t understand is that this is the same reason we should be allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. And I’m not alone in this; many people are seeing the failure of gun control in the U.K. and Australia, as well as the reduced violent crime rates in states that have carry laws.

I know there will be a call for, ‘Boy, we’ve got to take hold of every single gun and register the gun.’ It’s sort of like after 9/11, we had to worry about terrorists, but what we’ve done is register every American,” he said. “With national ID cards, inspection and loss of our liberties, warrantless searches, we’ve attacked law-abiding citizens. So, no, I don’t think we need more gun control for law-abiding citizens. — Ron Paul

Weighing Risk

Ultimately this question comes down to risk. Which is more likely to present a danger to society: 1) Mishaps caused by law-abiding citizens who have everything to lose by doing something stupid with their weapon, or 2) Criminals who will always have weapons despite ANY ban, and who feel emboldened when their victims are unarmed?

I say the latter. And it’s important to recognize that it’s all about the current threat level. If we lived in an ultra-quiet, non-violent society I’d be strong advocate of gun control. Why? Because the risk of accidents caused by the guns would be much higher than that of violent crime caused by criminals. But that’s simply not the case.

Here’s a short illustration of how this risk breaks down, keeping in mind that these are my own non-scientific estimates of the various values:

My chart isn’t meant to be conclusive proof of anything. It’s not tied to real data, but I think it does capture the fact that while one value goes up, another goes down. And as society gets more violent, the scale will tip farther and farther toward the benefits of citizen carry. It is this dynamic that should be closely studied in order to create policy.

Think, Don’t Feel

Another concept that Bruce Schneier speaks about often is that of illogical and imbalanced emotional reactions to various threats. In this case we see accidental harm being reacted to much more strongly than to violent crime itself. It’s as if 1 accidental death equals 5 deaths caused by criminals. I think we, as a society, need to fight that impulse.

As it turns out there is a very poignant example of legal carry laws working to the benefit of society. In 2002 there was another shooting incident at another Virginia university. It was stopped by two law students who legally owned handguns. They went out to their cars, got their weapons, and were able to put a stop to the incident before it became headline news.

It’s time to look very seriously at this issue without the liberal filter of what “feels” right. Few people would argue that having more guns in the society is an ideal situation, but if it achieves the very goal that gun control was meant to accomplish then it’s simply the thing to do.:

This is an absolutely amazing post on perhaps the most important issue facing atheists today: how to deal with religious moderates (especially friends). You care for your friends, and you don’t want to push your views on them, but at the same time you don’t want them to believe in unfounded concepts such as life after death, castles in the sky, virgin birth, chupacabras, or teapots orbiting Mars. It’s a dilemma. How do you deal with it? How do you point out to a friend or aquaintance that this stuff is silly without being an asshole? Here’s an excerpt:

Certainly, religious moderates themselves don’t silently tolerate the obviously unsubstantiated views of others. Just listen to religious moderates speak up when they hear others publicly espousing beliefs in such things as Bigfoot, the existence of ESP or astrology. Imagine a public official talking about his use of astrology at a press conference. Can you imagine an audience of religious moderates staying politely silent, thereby broadcasting the false idea that there was nothing inappropriate about the official’s belief in astrology?

It encourages continued bad mental hygiene to fail to speak up when others make claims that aren’t based in fact. Failing to speak up harms society in yet another important way. Allowing each other to utter baseless things without protest degrades the quality of relationships. It erodes our trust in each other.

Consider this true-life example. Many years ago, an acquaintance I’ll call Karen had a tumultuous break-up with Joe, her boyfriend. She was deeply hurt by Joe’s refusal to see her anymore. For several years after that break-up, Karen repeatedly told me that Joe hadn’t really broken up with her. She held to this bizarre conclusion despite the fact that Joe completely stopped calling her and never tried to see Karen again. She held to her bizarre opinion despite the fact that when Karen took the initiative and called Joe, he repeatedly told her such things as “I don’t ever want to see you again” and “I’m dating someone else now” and “I’ll call the police if you don’t leave me alone.” She admitted all of this to me.

Despite the plain meaning of Joe’s words and actions, Karen continued to believe that Joe still loved her deeply. She claimed that Joe would call her and let her phone ring once then hang up (this is before caller ID), but she “knew” it was Joe. She claimed that Joe would sometimes sneak out to her house in the early morning to move Karen’s newspaper from her lawn up to her porch. She never saw him do that, but she “knew” Joe did it. He did these things, Karen said, because he was trying hard to subtlely communicate to her that he still loved her and he wanted to be with her. He just couldn’t get up the nerve to deal with this “difficult issue” face to face, she said. He was shy and introverted and confused, she said.

Karen was highly successful in her challenging profession, arguably brilliant. In our conversations, though, she periodically brought up Joe, and tried to get me to agree with her claim that Joe still loved her. I listened patiently at first, thinking that I was missing something, then I started expressing doubts, which caused Karen to become dramatically frustrated with me that I didn’t “get it.” She desperately clung to her belief that Joe still loved her and was still wooing her in these bizarre ways. No evidence would have convinced her otherwise. Outside of that single strange issue of Joe, Karen and I continued to have a fruitful (yet strained) friendship based upon intellectual ideas we shared.

It became apparent that I couldn’t easily convince Karen that Joe didn’t love her. Yet I continued to gently make my disagreement with Karen known to her. I owed that honesty to her. To push my viewpoint too hard would have driven her back ever more firmly to her totally unsupported belief (this happened several times). Therefore, whenever Karen raised the topic of Joe, I gently yet firmly told her that I disagreed with her and I took some heat for my honesty.

As a friend, it was my duty to let Karen know that her beliefs about Joe made no sense in light of the evidence. For several years, she intensely craved for me to agree with her or at least remain silent when she spoke of Joe’s continuing love for her. It annoyed her immensely whenever I refused to tell her the comforting things she wanted to hear.

It was my job, though, to help Karen identify her poor mental hygiene regarding Joe, even though her belief system caused her pain to bear that thought. Here’s why I had to speak up: as long as Karen made claims that Joe (long-gone Joe) still loved her, Karen was not fully able to be my friend, because I couldn’t fully trust her judgment.

Karen’s beliefs regarding Joe’s continuing and undying love for her eventually faded, but it took years. Eventually, she stopped discussing Joe, I was once again able to fully trust Karen’s judgment.

I hope that the parallels to religious belief are obvious. Moderate believers need to hear from freethinkers for the same reason that freethinkers need to hear from each other. Moderate religious believers need freethinkers to remind them to question outlandish propositions that they have been trained to say (through a lifetime of mostly thoughtless repetition) for the purpose of assuring each other and comforting themselves.

Moderate religious believers need to be reminded that claims of virgin birth and dead people coming alive are as absurd as claims that there are two suns in the sky or that giants live in huge castles on the top of clouds. They need to be reminded that it makes no sense to say that dead humans are sentient, because there is no evidence of this.

All suspicious claims deserve real scrutiny. That many Christian religious claims are based on the Bible should cause thinking moderate Christians to scurry to study the origin of the Epistles and Gospels. If they bothered to study what is known about these early Christian writings, they would be shocked. But the great majority of Christians, including most moderate Christians, don’t want to know about the gaps, errors and self-contradictions in the writings on which they base most of their religious beliefs. With very few exceptions, moderate (and fundamentalist) Christians consciously refuse to consider the extremely shaky basis of their extraordinary religious claims, yet they continue to proclaim their articles of faith as though they were supported by as much evidence the assertion that there is only one sun. Something is obviously wrong with this type of thought process. People who give a damn about their friends don’t sit in silence when their friends engage in such talk.

Wow, I’ve been working on a post like this myself, and this guy pulled it off beautifully. Thank you, Erich Vieth for saying what needed to be said. I will reference this piece for a long time, and will try and supplement it with my own thoughts sometime soon.:

[ Link: How To Deal With Religious Moderates ]

[ Link: God Hates The World ]

I’ve just posted my latest study piece. This one’s on Unix/Linux permissions.

[ Link: Unix/Linux Permissions ]

When this talk comes from a Twitter developer, who loves both Ruby and Rails and happen to be running probably the most punished RoR site on the Internet right now, I’m inclined to believe. (they’re taking over 11,000 requests per second during peak times). Here are a few quotes from the interview:

Once you hit a certain threshold of traffic, either you need to strip out all the costly neat stuff that Rails does for you (RJS, ActiveRecord, ActiveSupport, etc.) or move the slow parts of your application out of Rails, or both.

It’s also worth mentioning that there shouldn’t be doubt in anybody’s mind at this point that Ruby itself is slow. It’s great that people are hard at work on faster implementations of the language, but right now, it’s tough.

[ Link: Interview With Twitter Dev ]

Does this discourage me from Ruby or Rails? Hell no. To me the elegance of the language completely dominates its flaws, especially when you realize that there exists a small legion of very smart people who are obsessed with fixing these problems.

No, I’ll be sticking with Ruby and Rails. I’ll wait for the performance and scale issues to be fixed in subsequent releases. The language/framework is too beautiful to shun.

[ Link: Linux Mac Ads ]

You definitely need to see the second one. Great stuff.

A Digg user by the name of Delmonte posted this in a recent thread about Lepoard, and it’s very intriguing stuff. I’ve thought for months now that Apple was going to do something fairly big with the GUI, and this may be it.

Mark my words, Leopard will feature dynamic live re-coloring of windows, menus and widgets according to parameters like time of the day and/or user settings.

For example, during the day you could have your windows and menus with a bluish tint and black text, and they would gradually fade to a white text on black theme as the evening comes.

It’s not like Apple has a fundamental philosophy that windows should be gray. The reason why they didn’t implement such re-colorization feature before is that the old OS X UI framework was an archaic mess of bitmaps that was hard to maintain. The two current themes, “blue” and “graphite” each had their own sets of bitmaps, adding new color themes would’ve required creating new sets of bitmaps in that obsolete and messy Extra.rsrc file.

Leopard includes an all new XML based UI framework, and all widgets and window parts are being vectorized. Implementing dynamic re-colorization of the main theme will be trivial in Leopard.

And while Windows had the ability to have different color themes for years, Leopard will push the envelope further, with a dynamic aspect to it.

Don’t you think Apple is aware that moving to a unified theme makes every window look the same, making Exposé harder to use? Colorization could be implemented on an application basis, or even a window basis, as a user choice from a color palette. That would fix the “recognition” problem while keeping a unified theme.

Other possible dynamic features could include a window that smoothly pulse red when it needs your attention, or changing color according to its activity, the outside temperature or the passage of time.

You guys seriously think that Apple will present a “dull”, gray-themed interface in Leopard to compete with Vista, when the vectorization of the interface at last enables easy color customization in OS X?

So then someone asks him how he knows this, and he answers:

I just know it ;)

But just so that Apple doesn’t think I leaked some top-secret info, let’s just say that Apple was recently awarded a patent for a very similar idea. US Patent number 7,184,056 “Method and apparatus for user customized shading of a graphical user interface”

http://tinyurl.com/3cayus

While the patent was filled in 2002, it was awarded February 27, 2007. Also, OS X simply didn’t have the foundations at the time to make it easy to implement. With a complete overhaul of the UI framework in Leopard, vectorization of the interface and now the unification of the UI, it’s obvious to me that the time has come for Apple to implement this idea into its OS. And while many Apple patents went unused, this one fits a little too well with the current interface situation in Leopard.

Lately I’ve been in a subscribe mode. This means that for my favorite bloggers I’ve been taking note of the people they mention in order to expand my inputs. This feeds obsession number 1:

I’m missing the best stuff out there.

So I’ve been doing the expansion thing for the last couple of months, and now I think it’s time trim down again. This helps alleviate obsession number 2:

Too much input and not enough output.

It’s sad that I’m run by my obsessions, but I suppose that’s the case for most everyone. Anyway, what feeds do you guys view as “must haves”?