Ok - this is a non-political reflection upon the Sarah Palin email hack that took place in the last week or so.  Regardless of how one feels about Sarah Palin and her politics, it is wrong to an incredible level for anyone to hack into someone’s email account.  What is even more obnoxious about the hack is that, according to this story on Wired.com, it was done to try to find anything incrimating against her.  Moving beyond the morals of this debate, a separate question revolves around security of webmail services.  It sounds like the hacker just used some good old fashioned social engineering to get Yahoo to pop up her security questions and a quick check of Wikipedia or any of a number of other online sources and you get to reset the password to whatever you like.  So, beyond not getting in the public eye, what is the take-away lesson from this?

The takeaway lesson is that, while Yahoo Mail, Gmail, etc all have “security” built in, the strength of the security still falls to the end user.  It begins with a password.  Passwords that are your dog’s name, your hometown, your birthdate, and so forth are not secure and are easily hacked.  Similarly, passwords that just use letters or just use numbers are also easily hacked.  The ideal password is one that contains a combination of letters (both upper and lower case), numbers, and symbols.

Ok, but those are hard to remember right?  Well, not necessarily.  One way of creating an easy-to-remember, but also secure password is to use the lyrics of your favorite song.  Let’s say your favorite song is Sgt Pepper’s by The Beatles.  Take the first letter from each word in the chorus…

We’re Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,
We hope you will enjoy the show

WSPLHCBWHYWETS

By itself, those characters make up a pretty weak password.  But if you change a few things…

1. WSPLHCBWHYWETs - makes it a slightly stronger password (last S is now lower-case)
2. WSPLHCBWHYW3Ts - its suddenly a even more secure password (changed the E to a 3)
3. WSPLHCBWHYW3ts - More secure still.  The last two letters are lower-case.

Other things you can do to make passwords even more secure are to have a wider mix of upper and lower case characters, change letters to numbers such as a 1 for an i, a 3 for an E, a zero (0) for the letter O, a 5 for an S and so forth.

It might take some getting used to, but its a great start.

So, Sarah Palin, if you are still using Yahoo Mail (which I hope you are not after their horrific security PR mess), don’t forget that M00S3 is an ok password.  But M00s3hunt3R@ALASKA is even better.

If you would like to check the security of your passwords (and if you trust Microsoft), there is a great tool on MS’ site where it will give you a grading of your password security.

Not every win is a pretty one, but every win is still a win.  Last night was exactly that for the Buffaloes.  17-14 over West Virginia in a game that I think was more dominated by good defense (and a few really boneheaded play calls by WVU’s coach) after the 1st quarter ended.  As I watched until the wee hours of the night, I was thinking of how great it would have been to have been in Boulder last night for the game.  Then I read on facebook that one of my college buddies did go to the game and said that it was the most electric atmosphere he had experienced at Folsom.  It got me thinking about other Buffs games that brought out a similar atmosphere.

Until I moved away from Boulder after graduation, I had gone to most of the Buffs home games since I was in 6th grade.  My parents had season tickets and then I had my student tickets when I was in school.  Two games stand out - one while we had those season tix and one from a game I came home for.

Monday, September 4, 1989 - The first game of what was one of the most magical seasons in Colorado history.  It was the first game for starting QB Darian Hagan and it was against future Big 12 opponent Texas.  It was my first night game at Folsom Field and on one of the first plays of the game, Hagan darted around the right side of the line on an option play and took it to the house for a 60 yard touchdown.  It was the first game of what was to be an undefeated regular season in Colorado’s centennial season. As Hagan darted down the sidelines (right in front of me I might add), the stadium was just going crazy. I still remember the volume.

Friday, November 23, 2001 - That volume of the Texas game was easily eclipsed by the day that Colorado began what was to be the Nebraska Cornhuskers’ slide into irrelevance (although they are trying to climb back out).  The Buffs came in as big underdogs to the then-#2 ranked corn and the Buffs shot out to a 21-0 lead in about the first 5 minutes of the game.  While the Huskers made a bit of a game of it in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, the Buffs eventually pulled away for a 62-36 win.  My seats that day were at the very front of the visitors section, so the volume and insanity of the rest of the stadium was in great contrast to the silence of the red-and-white-clad fans behind us.  I have never been in a stadium as electric as it was that night.  Amazing.

I have great hopes for where Dan Hawkins will take the Buffs from here.  He’s building the program well and is moving in the right direction.  Time to take down the ‘Noles!

Wow - what a game for the Broncos this afternoon.  An amazing game to watch and one that I am really thankful to be on the “winning” side.  The Broncos should feel pretty lucky to have this one courtesy of the call at the end of the game (which I chose to not have pictured on this post).  I know its the rule, but it is a stupid rule that the play was dead when the whistle blew.  I can see that when there is a huge scrum for a ball and some players stop when the whistle blew.  But in this one, by the time the ref blew the play dead, the Chargers player was the only one near the ball and virtually had it already in his hands.  As much as my team benefited from it, it would have been nice to give a ref a chance to make a judgment call (see Locker, Jake) instead of having to go just by the letter of the law. The Chargers message boards are a sight to behold tonight though.

Regardless of the actual outcome, it was an incredible game that both teams desreved to win and both deserved to lose.  The Broncos should never have been in the position they were at the end.  Jumping out to a 21-3 lead means that you should be in control the rest of the day.  But instead, we let the Chargers back in the game and realistically should have lost it.  The Chargers made a great comeback, yes, but their defense was pretty bad all game (not that the Broncos’ was anything special either) and could not stop Cutler to Marshall (that’s going to be a nice three-word-combo for many years to come).

Anyway - amazing game and a nice end result.

As he often does, my friend Drew got me thinking this morning with a blog post. He is reflecting upon some of the pieces of Sarah Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson tonight on 20/20.  I have not seen the interview as yet (although the Tivo is set to record) and I have only seen a few clips.  That being said, I grow concerned with the perspectives of our politicians (Republican and Democrat) who seem to not mention the P-word in connection with talking about terrorism in our day and age.  Yes, I do think that Islamic terrorism is a threat that needs to be taken seriously in our world today.  But we do not hear George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, or Sarah Palin talking about aggression against terrorists (or countries that are potentially harboring terrorists) as actions trying to find a new and lasting peace in our world.  Instead, the focus is on us - on our national security, on our safe borders, on our standing in the world.  Are we fighting this war on terrorism in order that we just defeat the terrorists or to create a new and lasting peace in the world?

The contrasts between World War I and World War II reflect some of this.  When World War I ended, the treaties that were signed ended up leading towards the depression and bankruptcy of the German government that fostered the environment where the Nazis could come to power in the 1930s.  The Treaty of Versailles was a punitive treaty that required Germany (especially) to pay for the war debts incurred by other countries.  This vast debt bankrupted the German government and made German currency essentially useless.  The bitterness and anger from this in Germany allowed a strong nationalist party such as the Nazis to appeal to a sense of “restoring the motherland” and the Nazis came to power.  Yes, this is a simplification of the issues, but this gives an overall sense of what took place after World War I.

When World War II ended, it was an entirely different story.  There was a commitment on the part of the victorious Allies to rebuild Germany, Europe, Japan, etc in order that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated.  That’s why there was the incredible investment in Germany and Japan by the Allies to rebuild the countries.  It was not a punitive ending to the war and one that punished the people of the Axis countries, but instead sought to rebuild their lives while punishing those who were responsible for the wars (Nuremberg trials, etc).

So, what are we doing today?  Are we seeking to foster a lasting peace in our world?  Are roots of terrorism in the ways that we, as a country, are perceived around the world and are we doing anything to change that perception?  Or are we seeking to just focus on killing Bin Laden and bombing terrorist hideouts while not being concerned about how these things are perceived in the Islamic world?

As I was thinking about this, I came across a speech that Franklin Roosevelt was to give on April 13, 1945.  It was a speech that he was never able to deliver as he died the day before.  His words, however, are very forward thinking to what we face today and about what we could do as a nation and as a world in order to create a latsing peace.

From The American Presidency Project: (boldfaced lines emphasized by me)

Americans are gathered together this evening in communities all over the country to pay tribute to the living memory of Thomas Jefferson-one of the greatest of all democrats; and I want to make it clear that I am spelling that word “democrats” with a small d.

I wish I had the power, just for this evening, to be present at all of these gatherings.

In this historic year, more than ever before, we do well to consider the character of Thomas Jefferson as an American citizen of the world.

As Minister to France, then as our first Secretary of State and as our third President, Jefferson was instrumental in the establishment of the United States as a vital factor in international affairs.

It was he who first sent our Navy into far-distant waters to defend our rights. And the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine was the logical development of Jefferson’s far-seeing foreign policy.

Today this Nation which Jefferson helped so greatly to build is playing a tremendous part in the battle for the rights of man all over the world.

Today we are part of the vast Allied force—a force composed of flesh and blood and steel and spirit—which is today destroying the makers of war, the breeders of hatred, in Europe and in Asia.

In Jefferson’s time our Navy consisted of only a handful of frigates headed by the gallant U.S.S. Constitution—Old Ironsides—but that tiny Navy taught Nations across the Atlantic that piracy in the Mediterranean—acts of aggression against peaceful commerce and the enslavement of their crews—was one of those things which, among neighbors, simply was not done.

Today we have learned in the agony of war that great power involves great responsibility. Today we can no more escape the consequences of German and Japanese aggression than could we avoid the consequences of attacks by the Barbary Corsairs a century and a half before.

We, as Americans, do not choose to deny our responsibility.

Nor do we intend to abandon our determination that, within the lives of our children and our children’s children, there will not be a third world war.

We seek peace—enduring peace. More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginnings of all wars—yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman, and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments.

The once powerful, malignant Nazi state is crumbling. The Japanese war lords are receiving, in their own homeland, the retribution for which they asked when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

But the mere conquest of our enemies is not enough.

We must go on to do all in our power to conquer the doubts and the fears, the ignorance and the greed, which made this horror possible.

Thomas Jefferson, himself a distinguished scientist, once spoke of “the brotherly spirit of Science, which unites into one family all its votaries of whatever grade, and however widely dispersed throughout the different quarters of the globe.”

Today, science has brought all the different quarters of the globe so close together that it is impossible to isolate them one from another.

Today we are faced with the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships—the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together, in the same world, at peace.

Let me assure you that my hand is the steadier for the work that is to be done, that I move more firmly into the task, knowing that you—millions and millions of you—are joined with me in the resolve to make this work endure.

The work, my friends, is peace. More than an end of this war —an end to the beginnings of all wars. Yes, an end, forever, to this impractical, unrealistic settlement of the differences between governments by the mass killing of peoples.

Today, as we move against the terrible scourge of war—as we go forward toward the greatest contribution that any generation of human beings can make in this world- the contribution of lasting peace, I ask you to keep up your faith. I measure the sound, solid achievement that can be made at this time by the straight edge of your own confidence and your resolve. And to you, and to all Americans who dedicate themselves with us to the making of an abiding peace, I say:

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.

What if these words were delivered today by a presidential candidate? Why are we not hearing similar words that both acknowledge the reality of war in the world, but also focus on the hoped-for end result of war being a full and lasting peace not just for one country but for all. That’s someone I could vote for.

I have linked to Roland Martin’s work before on CNN.com and I need to do so again.  This time Mr Martin is trying to focus on how to get past the political sides of the discussion regarding Gov. Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy.  While I doubt his words will really make a difference in the debate as a whole because the story is too juicy for the media and blogs to ignore, I do think that we need to listen to the larger point he is making.  His point is that we are not talking exclusively about a political issue here, but we are talking about people, often young women (and also some young men) who are facing the most difficult period of their lives in making a choice about what to do about an unintended pregnancy.

Yes there are issues in this regarding Gov. Palin and her support of abstinence-only education and really how much the families of candidates are “off-limits.”  For example, should there be discussion about the political viewpoints of Todd Palin as much as there have been about Michelle Obama?  What about Cindy McCain or Jill Biden?

But ultimately, we cannot miss the people who are in the middle of all this.  I may not support Sen McCain and his choice of a running mate, but I do pray for Bristol Palin and the difficult period she is in.

Note - read also Martin’s column from a few months back about the response (or more accurately, lack thereof) to the crisis of AIDS in America.

I am a sucker for beta software.  I love just taking new software out and giving it a spin.  So, when I read this morning about Google’s Chrome browser, I figured I’d give it a go.  I know it would have to be spectacular to take over for Firefox, my browser of choice for the last several years, but it was worth a shot, right?  Well, I am writing this post within Chrome and I have to admit that, for a frist try, Chrome is a prety nice little browser.  I have tried all the major browsers out there - Firefox, IE, Safari (Mac’s version only), Opera, and now Chrome and I think that Google’s first effort is a much stronger one than the first versions of any of the other browsers I have used.  

That being said, it has a long way to go to catch up to Firefox.  I leave IE out of the equation because I largely have ignored IE as much as possible (except for the one financial site that I still have to use IE for -grrr).  There are two features that were very new with Chrome, both of them largely cosmetic.  The first is that the tabs for the various browser “windows” are at the very top of the browser and not below a toolbar. Gives more of a sense of a notebook or an organizer.  I don’t like this, but I also don’t dislike it.  What it does do is keeps the search bar closer to the actual content of the webpage instead of being separated by a row of tabs, toolbars, etc.  That being said, visually it feels awkward because the tabs just seem to float up there.  Again, not something I totally like, but I don’t think its a bad thing either.  

The other is the optional start page that Chrome has.  You can set your opening page to be a preview page of the most frequently visited pages.  I actually throught that this was a great idea and a great way to start the browsing experience.  I have a tab in Firefox called my AM tab.  It has all the sites that I visit first time I open up the browser in the morning - my bank, Woot, CNN, email, APOD, my Bible page, and Reader.  I just right click on the folder in the toolbar and click “open in tabs” and they are all up.  With Chrome, all those sites are previewed on the opening page when you first open the browser.  A nice idea.  

I read several reviews that said that it loads, renders, and runs sites faster than Firefox, IE, or Opera.  I honestly haven’t noticed much of a difference.  Sites with heavy Javascript, AJAX, etc do not seem to be noticilbly faster for me than they are in Firefox on the same system.  

Overall, I think its a great first step by Google, but it is not going to replace Firefox, at least for the immediate future.  And I can’t use it within Mac OS X because there’s no version for Mac as yet.   I am writing this after playing some HL2 in my Boot Camp installation.

QUICK UPDATE - I played around a bit more and found that the tabs are “detachable.”  You can click and drag them off the browser window to make new windows and also drag open windows to the tab bar to insert them as tabs.  Interesting…

UPDATE 2 - World Conquest on facebook does not work in Chrome…

Ok - I will post something that is not political in nature.  I had the pleasure this evening of participating in my annual fantasy football draft.  It is a ritural that began in my college days with a group of 12 of us and has continued each year since.  Of the 12 in the league today, 7 were in the league back in college and I think we’ll all be in for a long time to come.  Its a wonderful blessing to share this connection with the fellas because, with the exception of 1-2 of the guys in the league, I probably wouldn’t be in contact with the rest if it wasn’t for the league.

My teams this year are looking fairly solid with the primary weakness being depth.  I have, I think, great starting lineups, but the backups (especially at RB) are really horrific. My big thing for this season is that I need Larry Johnson to stay healthy as he is my RB in both leagues.  Please Larry, return to some measure of your 2006 form!!!

Beyond that, I am relying upon guys like Frank Gore, Calvin Johnson, Ben Roethlisburger (sp?), Drew Brees, Selvin Young, Lee Evans, and Randy Moss (nice) to lead me to back-to-back titles in one league and a first title in the other league. There’s a few sleepers and fliers thrown in as well, but I’ll rise and fall with the guys above.

Ok - I know I said that my next post would not be political in nature, but I was just reading some stuff about Sarah Palin and have learned several things that just stun disappoint me that McCain picked her as his running mate.

In this interview with a site called Newsmax.com (never heard of it until now), she is being asked about her views about the environment, drilling, global warming, etc.  Note this last exchange…

What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made?!?!?!?

So, once again, we have someone who denies the perspectives of the VAST majority (would 98% be too high of an estimate) of scientists who say that global warming is directly connected to the increasing amounts of pollutants that we as human beings are releasing into the environment every moment?

Unbelievable…

My Offcenter friend Drew posted a very thoughtful commentary on Sen. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his VP candidate. His first point refers to the “Clinton question.” He writes:

Palin has already been called out that she was chosen to compete for the Hilary Clinton cohort. Bloomberg quotes her saying, “‘Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America,” Palin said, referring to the votes Clinton won. ‘We can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.’” The use of the same metaphor is telling. That 18 Million is a market. It’s the same number of listeners of the Howard Stern Show at the time he signed with Sirius. He got an enormous contract because of that size of a base. Her job is to market to that market cluster to get McCain in the White House. But is it too transparent of a move after Hilary Clinton’s speech at the DNC? You bet the Obama camp thinks so and will play that out. How will McCain tarry that blow?

The thing that comes to mind for me about this pick (and credit also goes to my friend Erin on this point) is that if McCain is hoping to capture those 18 million votes that went to Sen. Clinton in the primaries, its a HUGE roll of the dice.  The question for those 18 millions was whether they were voting simply for a woman to make history (Sen Clinton as President or VP), for Sen Clinton specifically to make history, or for Sen. Clinton because they supported her specific positions (exlcusive of the “history” aspect) on the issues.  If the majority are in the latter two, this position will backfire for McCain.

My gut says that this move will galvanize those “uncommitted” democrats (not so flatteringly referred to as PUMAs) into supporting Obama and Biden because they don’t want another woman to be the one to break the glass ceiling, especially one who is dramatically different from Sen. Clinton in so many ways. It will also, in my opinion, energize Sen. Clinton in her support and campaign for Obama because I cannot imagine that she would want another woman to be the one to be “the first.”

I admit that this pick is much more interesting.  Any of the other choices - Romney, Ridge, Leiberman, etc - would have all been yawners for the most part.  This one has at least sparked some interest.

I promise I’ll do a non-political post next.  Probably football related.

But I cannot leave behind without cross posting this image that was in the discussions on dailykos.com today…(I will give attribution if I can find it again).  This is for all you BSG fans out there….

As if I needed another reason to vote for Obama…He came out after Sen. Biden’s terrific acceptance speech and began to talk about how the convention has gone.  Sen. Obama accurately highlighted the strong (bordering on spectacular) speeches by Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton (although he did leave out Kucinich’s stunning “Wake Up America” speech earlier on Tuesday [see below]- if you have not watched it, do so now.  Its only 6 minutes, but well worth every second).  Sen. Obama then began to talk about Thursday night’s speech and about how it would be great to have everyone able to attend the speech at “MILE HIGH STADIUM!” That just warmed my Denver Broncos loving heart.

For those unaware of why this is a big deal…When the Broncos chose to build a new stadium and abandon the beautiful old beast that was the original Mile High Stadium, one immediate concern was whether they would move into another corporate-named place.  Well, of course they did.  Invesco jumped in, fired a ton of $$$ at Pat Bowlen and Invesco Field (at Mile High) was born.  Anyway, for many Broncos fans, the stadium is not Invesco Field at Mile High, but will always be Mile High Stadium because that’s where the Broncos began and went to six Super Bowls (winning two of them back to back).  Its the place that I saw my first professional football game when the Broncos played the Seahawks, where I saw the Broncos win the AFC Championship in 1987 when Jeremiah Castille stripped the ball from Cleveland’s Ernest Byner as he was about to score the tying touchdown near the end of the game, its where I saw one of the best Monday Night games ever when Elway dueled Montana down to the wire in 1994, and its where I saw Metallica and Guns N Roses.

And even though the original Mile High is just a parking lot now, the stadium is still Mile High and clearly Obama knows that.  Tomorrow night will be great!

And here’s Rep. Kucinich’s speech from Tuesday night…