Do you feel like this everytime you try to do something online? Photo courtesy of:
threesixtyfive | day 244, originally uploaded by Sybren A. Stüvel.
Passwords are out of control. You need one for just about everything, and there is virtually no way to keep track of them anymore:
- some sites require users to change them every 90 days
- most have stipulations on character length and what must be contained (special characters, numbers, capital letters, etc)
- Password recovery is often a pain itself, requiring users to decipher a line of scribbly text and/or answer a stupid secret question (that one could easily forget the answer to also)
- The really evil sites prohibit a user from ever using the same password phrase
This post is dedicated to tips and tricks to avoid a total meltdown. Here are my current and future password remembrance strategies:
Master Excel Spreadsheet Method
- I have every password archived in an Excel document (which is password protected, of course)! For every account, I list the site, the username, password, email attached to that account, date the account was created, any stupid rules, and the answers to my secret questions. The multitude of accounts are organized by type: Social Media goes into sheet 1 for example, work-related accounts in sheet 2, and financial institutions are in sheet 3, etc.
- My passwords are the same or very similar for similar types of accounts. Only accounts that would wreak havoc on my entire life if their security was compromised are given unique, super, “un-hackable” passwords and are changed 4 times a year. Deciding which accounts are more important than others isn’t usually very hard to do — the key here is to not use the same system for everything. You don’t want a secondary personal email account on Hotmail to be related to your banking password.
- This document is backed up in multiple locations (though I won’t say where!)
- My password life has been a lot more manageable and stress-free since I implemented this system about a year ago. If the idea of that much organization brings tears to your eyes, I have recently came up with another method:
Memory-Association Technique
- Remember your passwords by associating the first letter of a website with an item in an alphabetical series. I’m thinking of doing mine with animals. For example, Amazon.com and all other websites that start with the letter “A” could have a password revolving around “Aardvark.” Bestbuy.com and other “B” sites could be “Badger” and so on.
- This can be an easy way to remember the password to any site, so long as you commit to memory 26 standard items in a series. Animals are my best suggestion.
- If you’re incessant about changing your password often, then try rotating through a different animal kingdom. Birds could be for one year, mammals another, etc. Note: This strategy offers a high-level of security, but memorizing a lot of items in a series can be cumbersome. And you have to change all of your passwords at once or you’ll be on two different systems at the same time! Plus it will only work if you can remember your entire series of alphabetical phrases.
I’m curious to know what your password strategies are. How do you avoid the meltdown? Furthermore, do you foresee a gradual shift in default account security methods, such as replacing passwords with fingerprint readers? That technology has already been integrated into IBM machines and perhaps other computers for years.
Major breaking news: I’m moving to Raleigh, NC!
While I’ve fully enjoyed my internships since graduating, I’m so excited to be transitioning, officially, to a member of the labor force. Only 45 years to go.(In case I win the lottery tomorrow. #YeahRight)
Relocating to Raleigh is also very exciting. I’ve lived most of my life on the other end of Tobacco Road, in Winston-Salem. (And in case you were wondering, I’m not a Deacon. Yuck. Carolina blue all the way baby!)
What all is there to do here? I know the basics — Umstead Park, Crabtree Mall, RBC Center, etc., but where are the fun, interesting places where you can find real people? I plan to spend my time doing well, everything a young professional is likely to do I guess, but am also very interested in connecting with others like me and attending Tweetups, industry-related events, workshops, conferences, etc., Any recommendations?
Best wishes to anyone searching for employment. I spent the last 13 months job searching, and I definitely know it’s tough out there. Not that I would consider myself a job hunting expert, but if you’d like to connect and discuss strategies, tips, or whatever, feel free to contact me.
PS — I’ve been tinkering with the idea of starting another blog, tentatively called “My Entry Level Life,” which will chronicle the ups and downs of my first year or so in the real world. A public journal of sorts, and (hopefully), a good resource for college students. Thoughts?
To my one RSS subscriber,
Thanks so much for hanging in there. I know it’s been tough — nearly 6 weeks since my last post. Between the holidays, family events, returning to my internship, getting a full-time job, and relocating to Raleigh, NC, blogging got pushed aside. I think I will have some more time for you soon.
Cheers!
An example of a movie trailer that does a horrible job at showing the real essence of a film.
Tonight I saw Brothers, chiefly because I didn’t have enough time to drive across town to see Precious. It is not the kind of movie I’m usually attracted to: the trailers sell this movie about two brothers, one a marine (Sam), and one a bad-boy lowlife (Tommy), engaged in a love triangle with the marine’s wife (Grace). However, I was convinced the film wouldn’t entirely bore me since it features three A-listers: Jake Gyllenhaal, Toby MacGuire, and Kate Beckinsale. When it was over, I was totally surprised and will definitely be getting this one on DVD.
Brothers is the story of a military family and the conflicts that occur when a marine essentially returns from the dead. While the plot does involve a love triangle, that’s hardly what movie goers will walk away remembering. This is not a film about romantic love; it is a film about family love and the struggles facing a new generation of war vets and their families. The film does a fantastic job of telling the story from everyone’s perspective including the children, the wife, the two brothers, and even the marine and lowlife’s father, a Vietnam vet. Filmed in Smalltown USA, (more precisely, Albiquiu, NM), Brothers could take place wherever marines are from, and I hope this film raises awareness about post-traumatic stress disorder and its effects on military families.
I love films based on real issues, such as the way Brothers uses the war in Afghanistan, and arguably, the inadequate psychological care/support our military receives after coming home (we learn MacGuire’s character is in counseling, but he nearly loses it when talking to his superior, and the climax of the movie is his armed meltdown near the end.) Films like this make us take a step back and think about the world around us, and perhaps, [subtly] encourage us to get involved. (I was a little disappointed that there was no ending message before the credits about PTSD and resources for moviegoers to help vets and their families.)
Of course, I have to ask — if Brothers is this kind of film, why was it not marketed as such? Why do the trailers and movie posters, and all creative media used to sell the movie emphasize the sultry love triangle? (By the way, I don’t want to spoil the plot, but fyi, this is hardly a true love triangle: There is no on-screen sex scene, not even a real kiss, and all the involved players quickly move on with their lives once Sam comes home.) Nevertheless, my guess is Hollywood knows the majority of moviegoers aren’t like me: They’re less interested in PTSD and way more intrigued by a love triangle featuring the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale and two leading Hollywood actors. In essence, sex sells, and this film’s marketers are eager to hide all of its other major themes and even blatantly misconstrue scenes in the trailers to emphasize romantic steam. (The two pairs of feet you see in the video above are not Tommy and Grace’s, but Sam and Grace’s the night before he leaves for war.)
I haven’t done any real research into movies involving the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (what a great project and film study by the way!), but films on these wars (or the Middle East in general) have not fared well, despite A-list talent and sometimes huge budgets: (data from boxofficemojo.com)
- In the Valley of Elah, directed by Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis and featuring big screen heavyweights Susan Sarandan and Tommy Lee Jones (Jones also won an Oscar for the film), earned a measly $6.5 million.
- Lions for Lambs stars Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford. $7 million at the box office.
- Rendition, a 2007 thriller with a $50 million budget, featuring Reese Witherspoon and coincidentally, Jake Gyllenhaal earned less than $10 million.
- The Kingdom, starring Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, and Chris Cooper has earned $47 million to date, but still a disappointment considering its $70 million budget
With this knowledge in mind, perhaps the point of Brothers is to sell tickets today, and reflect on today’s modern times tomorrow.
Note: Brothers is a remake of the 2004 Danish film Brødre, which appears to be the exact same story told from a Danish point of view. I’d love to watch it and compare/contrast the two! Click here for the trailer.
Releavant links:
Big screen heavyweights Helen Mirren and Russel Crowe work for The Washington Globe in the
2009 thriller State of Play. Image courtesy of http://www.stateofplaymovie.net/
I might have majored in corporate communications, but I still have a fond passion for broadcast, journalism, publishing, and film. So naturally, I love movies involving PR, broadcast, and journalism. Tonight I rented State of Play, a thriller about a complex Washington D.C. murder as told through the perpsective of two newspaper reporters (played by Russell Crowe and the fantastic Rachel McAdams). The film does a great job of showing audiences the issues surrounding America’s newspapers. (And it’s also awesome, so watch it yourself!)
To start, the paper’s editor, Cameron (Helen Mirron) is interested in the story, but can see the bigger picture: The Washington Globe has got to turn a profit or go bust. She knows the paper’s owners are more concerned with dollar signs than genuine investigative reporting. It’s tempting to join the ranks of Entertainment Tonight and US Weekly and start filling the pages with surface-level, sensational news to turn a quick buck. Cal (Russel Crowe) and Della (Rachel McAdams), firmly oppose this idea of course. Fortunately for Cal and Della, investigative journalism prevails just in the nick of time and the murder story comes full circle by the end of the movie. Real news vs. sensationalism was also a theme in one of my favorite movies, 2007’s Lions for Lambs starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Meryl Streep.
In addition, I loved the film’s final scene and end title sequence. I believe it is very symbolic of the end of newspapers. In the final scene, Cal finishes typing the story on an archaic computer. Although the reporters’ have met the deadline and got to the bottom of the story, there’s a very somber mood in the air as Cal pecks the last few words into existence. He then walks out of the office, leaving Della to send the file to print (she then catches up with Cal, and the two walk into the night together). Is this symbolic of the alleged end of real journalism? I vote yes. Both are excellent, tough-nosed reporters. Cal is a seasoned journalist, but he seems tired, withdrawn, and depressed for most of the film. It’s as if his best days are behind him. By contrast, Della is fresh out of school and bursting with energy. Is Cal down and out because he knows the fate of newspapers? Will Della ever get the chance to have the career Cal had? Is there something more to be said for the two of them walking into blackness together — perhaps a throwback to the end of Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times? (I’ve heard Charlie wanted this scene to represent the end of the silent film. Watch it here).
The end sequence begins with the gigantic newspaper printing press publishing the paper for the masses. Creedance Clearwater Revival’s “Long As I Can See The Light” plays. While the visuals and music score are appropriate for the plot, I think they also are an ode to the end of newspapers. The printing process is so outdated, so mechanical, and as pallets of newspapers are loaded onto trucks, I have to say to myself “wow, we actually still get news this way.” Perhaps its no coincidence that the music is from a band that reached its peak during Watergate — an event in which I consider one of journalism’s finest moments.
Then there’s the discussion of setting. State of Play could have been set 50 or even 100 years ago. There is hardly any use of modern technology, besides some very brief scenes with cell phones. Cal confesses his computer, which has a monotone screen, is 16 years old. Both reporters use notepads and pens, and even go to the library for research. (There’s no Google!) There’s just a glimpse of television news. The film is culturally modern, however, as women and minority characters carry some high-ranking titles, but it is clear the directors purposefully avoided any technology that competes with newspapers.
State of Play raises some interesting questions about modern journalism. To what degree are newspapers swaying in favor of emphasizing surface-level, sensationalized news? Are newspapers “selling-out” and becoming more like US Weekly to maintain readers? I’m from Gen-Y, and generally don’t read newspapers as much as I should. (In short, I think they’re extremely environmentally unfriendly, too slow, too awkward to physically hold and organize, and I hate turning to some other page to finish reading an article. Plus they literally fade away over time, take up space, and put messy ink on your hands.) However, I firmly believe newspapers today offer us a slower-paced flavor of news, and I never want to lose that. Twitter and CNN are great for 24/7 breaking news, but reading a story on CNN.com moments after something’s happened, versus reading about an event 24+ hours later in The New York Times will give you two quite different perspectives. Weekly newsmagazines give you an even slower recap of the news, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s a great thing! You’ll never see Time or Newsweek focus on the quick facts; we turn to them for interpretive, analytical, after-the-dust-has-settled “what does this really mean” answers.
My second question is more of a follow-up. If newspapers aren’t sensationalizing more news, then are they providing better investigative news coverage than they used to? We all know there are many laid-off journalists out there. For the ones that remain on the payroll, are they the winners of survival of the fittest? Are they the ones who won’t take no for an answer, who fight for truth firmly believe in the functions of the press? Essentially, is journalism getting better? Considering Darwinism, one would assume so. Then again, newspapers aren’t exactly the best models to illustrate Darwinism. If you’re a journalist, please let me know where you stand on this!
PS: What did you think of State of Play in regards to its portrayal of newspapers?
