And with your clever repartee, no one will be able to contradict you.
Sarcasm aside, your comment is useless. I think that there is still significant ambiguity in the sentence as written as you parent comment does. It is only saved by the fact that after the "and" is "two onlookers", allowing the reader to make logical sense of the sentence, but it still holds ambiguity.
Maybe there is some regional variation in how unambiguous this construct is. I can easily interpret your final sentence, "Eats, shoots and leaves," as saying that "eats" (n) are shoots (as in bamboo shoots) and edible leaves.
If you initially parse everything after the comma as the aside, you then have only the fact that "two onlookers" is not something that George coul be to allow you to understand the sentence.
If I read this correctly, the main negative point was that the author was not paid as much as his colleagues, though he did get the position. The author suggests this is because of his height. To me (a young professional in the software development industry) that screams that the author did not know his own worth and therefore did not negotiate a high enough pay. I'm young for the positions I have held, and am roughly of average height, but you can be sure that I will get paid the same or more than my colleagues, because I understand how much I am worth and I am willing to say as much.
I don't think anybody is saying that you shouldn't strive to understand crypto. I think the overall message is don't build systems with crypto unless you understand it, or have someone in your employ who does. If you don't understand crypto, you will likely implement it incorrectly. It's as simple as that.
Does the author not know how to write quotations? The use of parentheses instead of square brackets to denote the alteration of the quotation is confusing and painful.
There are also some very important facets to Information security that you are missing. You describe security as being "based on knowing, doing, or owning something that no one else can". But this is not quite right. You are speaking to only one aspect of security - confidentiality. There is also integrity and availability. Additionally, you are only speaking to the authentication aspect of confidentiality. Your "knowing, doing, or owning" could be more succinctly described as authorization based off of "something you know, something you have, or something you are" which are the 3 main ways that someone could be identified as you they claim to be. Your signature example would generally fall under something you are - but an argument could be made for it being something you know as well.
EDIT:
You also described Public key cryptography as having "2 different keys. One allows for encryption and the other for decryption. In this case, the decryption key is public so everyone can decrypt." This misses the mark a little bit. The public key could be used to encrypt as well, so that only the holder of the private key can read the information. Using the private key to encrypt is generally used in digital signatures so that the recipient can verify that the sender is who they claim to be. This scenario doesn't attempt to keep the data secret, because anyone with access to the public key can decrypt the data.
Yeah. I had hoped to scope the conversation down to authentication quickly, because, yes, security means a lot of things. I clearly didn't do that well.
You distinguish between "knowing, doing, or owning" and "something you know, something you have, or something you are"? I guess there might be a slight difference between doing and something you are, but I'm not sure I see the difference?
re. Public Key Crypto. Yes. Using the public key to decrypt and the private key to encrypt is how to use Public Key for author verification and you can reverse it for encryption. One validates the author and the other protects the data.
You are right to say that a better way of saying the sentence would be:
"in the case of digital signatures, the public key is used to decrypt thus everyone can decrypt."
Thanks for helping me with this. Will have to be more more clear next time I write something.
The something you are (which generally doesn't apply to web-based authentication) are biometrics. So something you are - the pattern of blood vessels in your retina - is something very different from something you "do". The fact that you have "muscle memory" that allows you to sign your name a certain way would again be "something you are". I can't pass that on to someone else - only I can do it.
Hotels, food, etc. If the goal is the destination rather than the journey, I imagine airlines will be the most efficient form of long distance travel for the forseeable future.
In that case, wouldn't the 200x200px square with the anomaly still be highlighted as unique from the rest of the sand, since none of the sand would match it?
You managed to, in more words than the original article, completely miss the point of the original article...
None of what you assume a "fuck 'em" mentality means is suggested in this article. It doesn't say that you should go out and walk across the country, it simply asks "what if?". It tells you to consider other options, to do much of what you suggest in the last paragraph of your response, except in your response you still have the assumption that to be successful in life, one must "care about your success in the company (and in your career)".
This article to me is a reminder that I don't need to do what everyone else is doing, or expects me to do, in order to be happy. I need to do what makes me happy, in order to be happy. Sometimes those values align, sometimes they don't. And in the instances that they don't, if someone else has a problem with that - Fuck 'em!
Sarcasm aside, your comment is useless. I think that there is still significant ambiguity in the sentence as written as you parent comment does. It is only saved by the fact that after the "and" is "two onlookers", allowing the reader to make logical sense of the sentence, but it still holds ambiguity.