@b_ Very good and nicely written. I enjoyed reading this. Thank you!

@shitshitshit Well, the point is that anyone who can hack into their database of users will get your email address, phone number, and password. The language spoken at their company is irrelevant.

Most databases store a "hash" of your password instead of your actual password. It's a one-way encryption process that you can't reverse to get the actual password. That is why places have the "reset password" procedure where they send you a crazy temporary password, then you set a new one. That's safer.

TracFone is very unsafe, and very 1990's.

A relative of mine said she couldn't get into her TracFone (cell phone company) online site, so I went online and tried to request a password reset. It took a while but I found something that looked close and clicked it.

Ding! I checked her email, and this is what I received in her email folder:

Seriously? They are storing the passwords clear text and sending them to unknown email servers and clients across the country in clear text? I guess it's true, given that the emailed password worked for the login.

If you aren't aware, anyone that was on that wifi network, or in a data center could have picked off that email with a title of "Your TracFone.com Password" and got her password. Now that's not really that important for TracFone, but what if you use that password for your bank, or a credit card? It's really bad news.

The other problem is that if there is a security breach (I mean, clear text passwords in the user database means they have complete idiots doing the programming and IT work), they would have access to your email address, and your password.

My advice:

If you have a TracFone, leave the same password there and change it on all other sites. TracFone is not secure and is awaiting a disaster. You might want to sell this one.

WoodMan

Dear Mr. President,

I voted for you to drain the swamp, but it seems like it's not going so well lately. It seems like, although I cannot tell you 100% yet, that you are falling for the old neoconservative war game.

The recent events (past year) in Syria and with Russia seems to have been retaliation without actually proving that Russia or Syria's Assad actually did the deed. (Or did the event actually happen?) I would request you take a moment and let the investigation into what happened complete, by as neutral of a team as possible.

Throughout History, our wars are triggered by events than later on were proven to be staged or allowed to happen.

WW1: The sinking of the Lusitania seems like the start, although even reading on Wikipedia, you'll see there was some provocation by the British to make sure it was sunk, getting the US into the war. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Outbreak_of_the_First_World_War)

WW2: Not enough evidence to show much about that. Also the Balfour Agreement could have had an effect.

Vietnam War: The Gulf of Tonkin incident was declassified in 2005 to show we were not attacked, and the war was based on that. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)

Iraq War: That should be obvious, there were no babies pulled out of incubators, no weapons of mass destruction, it was all a farce.

Afghanistan: Soldiers guarding poppy fields to make Heroin, now we have a Heroin epidemic in the USA. (No link needed.)

Skripal: UK investigator says no evidence of Chemical Weapons. (This is an ongoing investigation, but the story keeps changing. It doesn't look like a Russian attack. No motive.)

I could go on, but I will pass. There is a pattern of getting into wars by deception. We don't need another war, let us fight the battle at home. Our biggest problem is the Federal Reserve Bank. Lending money out of thin air, and charging interest on it. But I won't go into detail on that. I would just request that you take a little time, when you get your morning briefing, to get solid evidence of "the crimes" presented to you. Don't trust anyone, politicians seek power. The position is highly attractive to psychopaths and narcissists. I'm not concerned about you, I'm concerned that your advisers are fabricating evidence, which they have done before.

Sincerely,

WoodMan

PS: If you liked this article, don't forget to upvote!

He's pulling a Clinton, getting rid of the evidence since they took down Backpage.com.

@shitshitshit Maybe after September he will launch and land something on Mars. It's a long trip. If you have enough fuel, you can go almost anytime.

@shitshitshit

Or is there another clandestine passenger aboard this rocket, the like of this military spy satellite which mistakenly disappeared from the radar last time and that probably never was there to begin with? To me that would be the only reason behind this space stunt. That would be a very clever diversion...

Well, normally on first launches, as I've read in articles previously, they launch a block of concrete or metal.

I don't think there is enough propellant to decelerate for a landing on Mars. They also have no landing vehicle yet. I believe we aren't in the Hohmann transfer orbit range anyways (that's a specific method to get to another planet using least fuel). I think that starts in September, so an attempt to land on Mars launched today would waste fuel.

@shitshitshit Well low earth orbit is a problem, but it's still quite large.

@shitshitshit I was thinking about space junk also. One thing is that space is big. You could randomly (didn't do the math) blast millions of junk cars in that orbit area, and the chances of hitting one are still zero.