dkl

Uh, no it doesn't. I never got a single spam, and I've sold about 10 things (mostly electronic) over the last year. Not one of hte people flaked on me or tried to haggle once I met them. Yeah, they haggled before (on the phone or via email), but once I met them, everyone was nice and kept to the agreed upon price.

More than that. Rents for apartments have doubled in the last year in Oakland, says my friend who owns a lot of diverse properties in the East Bay, so you know it's much worse in SF.

Wow, you're adding a lot to this discussion.

  Promises kept: 45%
  Compromised: 25%
  Broken: 22%
  Stalled: 1%
  In the works: 6%
  not rated: 1%

A lot of us aren't. And we hate Windows 8.

Wow, the MSM really loves kicking on Tesla.

Back in the 70's, Berkeley, a close neighbor, decided that rent control was the answer. It turns out that it helped, but it had too many unintended consequences (people living in $200 nice apartments for decades when they made really good money, thus completely defeating the purpose of rent control).

So, rent control didn't work, at least not in the way it was done in Berkeley. Did it work in SF? Doesn't seem to have. NYC? I hear nightmare stores of their issues.

It's the dialog of the greater problems we need to have, not these stupid little fights.

You obviously don't use gmail. It's worked this way forever. And, the picture in the article shows this, too.

Buchwald based his decision on the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War, and required that the United States recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim. The original owner of the coastal property filed such a claim. The U.S. government challenged his land patent, but the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed his ownership in 1859 -- 14 years before the California Constitution was first drafted.

I can't make head nor tail of this.[1]

EDIT: OK, this[2] is clearer:

The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial.

The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso's land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso's ownership in 1859.

[1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/Vinod-Khosla-Can-Keep-Public-Off-B...

[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-k...

Can you say more about this? What is the perceived impact?

Compacting garbage collection.

You said:

I think port knocking is really silly and you shouldn't waste time with it. Disable root logins and password logins in SSH.

I'm pointing out that will lead to less security, not more, for the stated reason.

Suffice it to say that an attacker who has access to your SSH identity file has with virtually total certainty access to your SSH passphrase as well.

How so? By brute for cracking it?

If you turn off password logins, people will use authorized_keys to in effect get a password-less login. If their public key has a password, this is OK, since they're either using ssh-agent or typing in their password at the time of the login. However, what if their ssh key has no password on it? That gives a password-less login path to my host, which is less secure. The problem is, it is impossible to detect, on the server side, a login with a key with no password.

They had great actors, so it must have been the writing that sucked, not the actors.