Horse fucking shit. Advertising's biggest "secret" is that it doesn't fucking work on anyone but children and retards. (See all the advertising for the Minions movie.) It's a multi billion dollar industry built upon the very lies they promise to use to trick other people.
The idea that a normal adult is subconsciously influenced by advertising is a claim we've seen since the 1950s, and it's NEVER been true. Theater coke/popcorn ads, cigarette ads with sexy silhouettes hidden in the images, and all other instances of:subliminal advertising" don't fucking work on a subliminal level, nor do repetition, catchy songs, or anything else. There is absolutely zero evidence for subliminal manipulation beyond shitty 1950s (OH LOOK, IT'S THAT SAME DECADE AGAIN) movies about hypnotizing spies to carry out secret missions when they hear a trigger word.
People choose brands for 3 reasons:
Familiarity/loyalty - this is by FAR the biggest reason, and it's why advertisers, from cigarettes to soda, target children. Value - this is the criteria people use when making a new or infrequent purchase, and the only time people actually think about their purchases. Impulse - this is the candy at the checkout aisle, the "LOL LET'S TRY THAT TACO BELL FRIED SHIT ROLLED IN CAPTAIN CRUNCH", etc.
It will almost certainly look for the NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers value in the registry. It has done so for decades. The Pro versions have group policy and let you set that value with the group policy editor. The Home versions don't have group policy but do have the same registry.
Wrong. TFA says nothing of the sort - they only mention flipping the middle seat in the standard 3-seat row. The ONLY way to get more space when doing this is to also make the rows closer together. And this is plainly evident in the picture.
They're decreasing the spacing between the rows to get more seats. They're flipping the middle seat in order to "make up" for the lost leg room under the theory that people will accept a much more intimate orientation.
And such information would be specific to the user and the motivation would be specific to the user.
No one sending legitimate emails is getting blocked by the major blacklists. I personally haven't seen this happen in over a decade. It's always the people who spam and claim to be not spamming, or the people who run their "legitimate" email through a service known to let spammers run wild and cry when they get blocked along with the other trash.
If you wouldn't buy a first class stamp or pay a human to pick up the phone in order to send the information, the information is worthless at best and malicious at the worst.
I don't care if the entire planet needs to be notified of an impending asteroid impact. If the information isn't specific to me AND the reasoning behind sending the message isn't specific to me, then it's NOT worth an email.
Generic emails sent to thousands/millions of people are like traditional junk mail. Generic email sent one person (often phishing attempts) are like the old mail fraud scams. Specific email sent to thousands/millions of people are like pre-approved credit card offers, service coupons from the dealership you bought your car at, etc.
Actual communication means you have something specific to say to someone specific.
There's no channel through which nociception can travel.
You don't know what any being, or any thing, feels or thinks. In fact, you don't know that anything other than yourself feels or thinks. There is no physical explanation for the manifestation of consciousness.
Yeah, I don't see a practical application for this. You don't need that high of a ratio for any serious applications that don't also undergo tons of stress.
You don't encrypt the UUID. It's just a verification to make sure they know the UUID, which is universally unique, generated by you, and sent only to your database and to their email address. All this does is establish that they have access to the email address they supplied. If you do as I suggest and tie this UUID directly to the user entry, an attacker can't do anything with this UUID without ALSO knowing the user's login and password. Clicking the unique link or knowing the UUID is useless unless you can also login as the user to access their row in the user table.
For password resets, you generate a random password and salt, set it to immediately expire, and then tell the user that password. You leave the old hash and salt in place - the new stuff goes in separate columns until the switch is done by the user. This prevents users from being unable to authenticate if an attacker merely requests a reset, or if you trigger an expiration due to whatever policies you have in place.
Your login page should authenticate the user (using the original password OR the new temporary one). If the user used their old password and authenticated successfully, you can ignore the reset. If they used the temporary password, block all authorization until a new password is supplied by the user (only let them get to the password reset page).
On the password reset page, ask for a new password. Double check hash(newpass+oldsalt) against the stored temporary hash (do the same for the old regular hash too, if you want). If it's a match, the user is dumb and entered the temp (or old) password. If it's not, you generate a new salt and store hash(newpass+newsalt), store newsalt, reset the password expiration date, blow out the temp password, etc.
The trick here is telling the user the temporary password. This is often done with a unique link (using another UUID) that automatically skips the authentication portion and goes straight to the password reset portion for that user. This is extremely fucking dangerous because anyone with access to the email address can hijack the user's account. Despite this, this is how most site on the internet do it. Sending the temporary password in plaintext or not makes no difference because sending the link in plaintext is functionally equivalent. Your security at this point is hoping the legitimate user made the request, is the only one with access to the email address, and the narrow time window in which the temporary password / reset link is valid.
Security questions, pin numbers, RSA clocks, text messages, heuristics (matching IPs, browsers, etc.) all provide more security, but are useful against a MITM attack or cover the scenario where a user forgot the security answer, doesn't know their pin, lost the RSA clock (dongle or phone), changed phone numbers, moved, etc.
My site, on account creation, generates a password and sends it to you in email in cleartext before putting it in the DB. In that email is a link to reset the password; you can't log into the rest of the site until you've done so. The updated password (and the original) are stored encrypted in the DB.
If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm all ears.
Don't send the fucking password in plaintext. Don't store the fucking password. If your database/application can read it, then it's decrypted at some fucking point. Don't fucking do it.
User creates account. User provides password, username, email, etc. You generate salt. You generate a UUID (emailverificationUUID). You create DB entry with username, email, HASH(password + salt), salt, emailverificationUUID, emailverified (0). You email the user "Your account has been created, please click this link to verify your email address.". Link contains the UUID. When clicked, the site performs normal login processes (prompt login if not logged in already) and then verifies that the UUID matches the UUID stored for the logged-in user, and sets emailverified to 1 for that user if so.
There's not a chance in hell that "myhouse_optout_nomap" would work. You can either do "myhouse_optout" OR "myhouse_nomap". And they'll still ignore your preference.
Slashdot Mirror
Horse fucking shit.
Advertising's biggest "secret" is that it doesn't fucking work on anyone but children and retards. (See all the advertising for the Minions movie.)
It's a multi billion dollar industry built upon the very lies they promise to use to trick other people.
The idea that a normal adult is subconsciously influenced by advertising is a claim we've seen since the 1950s, and it's NEVER been true. Theater coke/popcorn ads, cigarette ads with sexy silhouettes hidden in the images, and all other instances of :subliminal advertising" don't fucking work on a subliminal level, nor do repetition, catchy songs, or anything else. There is absolutely zero evidence for subliminal manipulation beyond shitty 1950s (OH LOOK, IT'S THAT SAME DECADE AGAIN) movies about hypnotizing spies to carry out secret missions when they hear a trigger word.
People choose brands for 3 reasons:
Familiarity/loyalty - this is by FAR the biggest reason, and it's why advertisers, from cigarettes to soda, target children.
Value - this is the criteria people use when making a new or infrequent purchase, and the only time people actually think about their purchases.
Impulse - this is the candy at the checkout aisle, the "LOL LET'S TRY THAT TACO BELL FRIED SHIT ROLLED IN CAPTAIN CRUNCH", etc.
Yeah? Well I strapped some fucking rockets to my car and it went from 0 to 60 MPH in about 0.8 seconds. So fuck you.
It will almost certainly look for the NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers value in the registry. It has done so for decades.
The Pro versions have group policy and let you set that value with the group policy editor.
The Home versions don't have group policy but do have the same registry.
So, gay marriage was ALWAYS legal (constitutionally) and just now found out?
Of course it was always legal. What was just "found out" (decided, way too late) is how fucking unconstitutional laws against it were.
Wrong. TFA says nothing of the sort - they only mention flipping the middle seat in the standard 3-seat row.
The ONLY way to get more space when doing this is to also make the rows closer together. And this is plainly evident in the picture.
You're not missing anything.
They're changing:
[>__[>
[>__[>
[>__[>
to
_[>_[>
<]_<]_
_[>_[>
They're decreasing the spacing between the rows to get more seats.
They're flipping the middle seat in order to "make up" for the lost leg room under the theory that people will accept a much more intimate orientation.
Families should board last
Families should be dragged by a short length of rope attached to the underside of the plane.
And such information would be specific to the user and the motivation would be specific to the user.
No one sending legitimate emails is getting blocked by the major blacklists. I personally haven't seen this happen in over a decade. It's always the people who spam and claim to be not spamming, or the people who run their "legitimate" email through a service known to let spammers run wild and cry when they get blocked along with the other trash.
If you wouldn't buy a first class stamp or pay a human to pick up the phone in order to send the information, the information is worthless at best and malicious at the worst.
100% correct.
I'm sick of shit tards who favor censorship and while screaming that it isn't censorship.
I'm sending thousand of email per day
Congratulations, you're a spammer.
I don't care if the entire planet needs to be notified of an impending asteroid impact. If the information isn't specific to me AND the reasoning behind sending the message isn't specific to me, then it's NOT worth an email.
Generic emails sent to thousands/millions of people are like traditional junk mail.
Generic email sent one person (often phishing attempts) are like the old mail fraud scams.
Specific email sent to thousands/millions of people are like pre-approved credit card offers, service coupons from the dealership you bought your car at, etc.
Actual communication means you have something specific to say to someone specific.
There's no channel through which nociception can travel.
You don't know what any being, or any thing, feels or thinks.
In fact, you don't know that anything other than yourself feels or thinks.
There is no physical explanation for the manifestation of consciousness.
Using consenting humans would be far more ethical than using non-consenting animals.
Please be excited about Thunderbolt! I mean Lightning! I mean, Thunderbolt! I mean USB 3.0! I mean USB 3.1! I mean USB C!!!
Fuck McAfee
Mod +5 Insightful because you know it is.
We used to be able to call out bullshit posts like yours just based on the mention of "wife".
However, with gay marriage now legal in all 50 states...
Uninstall
That sounds like geometric growth, to me.
Yeah, I don't see a practical application for this. You don't need that high of a ratio for any serious applications that don't also undergo tons of stress.
You don't encrypt the UUID. It's just a verification to make sure they know the UUID, which is universally unique, generated by you, and sent only to your database and to their email address. All this does is establish that they have access to the email address they supplied. If you do as I suggest and tie this UUID directly to the user entry, an attacker can't do anything with this UUID without ALSO knowing the user's login and password. Clicking the unique link or knowing the UUID is useless unless you can also login as the user to access their row in the user table.
For password resets, you generate a random password and salt, set it to immediately expire, and then tell the user that password. You leave the old hash and salt in place - the new stuff goes in separate columns until the switch is done by the user. This prevents users from being unable to authenticate if an attacker merely requests a reset, or if you trigger an expiration due to whatever policies you have in place.
Your login page should authenticate the user (using the original password OR the new temporary one). If the user used their old password and authenticated successfully, you can ignore the reset. If they used the temporary password, block all authorization until a new password is supplied by the user (only let them get to the password reset page).
On the password reset page, ask for a new password. Double check hash(newpass+oldsalt) against the stored temporary hash (do the same for the old regular hash too, if you want). If it's a match, the user is dumb and entered the temp (or old) password. If it's not, you generate a new salt and store hash(newpass+newsalt), store newsalt, reset the password expiration date, blow out the temp password, etc.
The trick here is telling the user the temporary password. This is often done with a unique link (using another UUID) that automatically skips the authentication portion and goes straight to the password reset portion for that user. This is extremely fucking dangerous because anyone with access to the email address can hijack the user's account. Despite this, this is how most site on the internet do it. Sending the temporary password in plaintext or not makes no difference because sending the link in plaintext is functionally equivalent. Your security at this point is hoping the legitimate user made the request, is the only one with access to the email address, and the narrow time window in which the temporary password / reset link is valid.
Security questions, pin numbers, RSA clocks, text messages, heuristics (matching IPs, browsers, etc.) all provide more security, but are useful against a MITM attack or cover the scenario where a user forgot the security answer, doesn't know their pin, lost the RSA clock (dongle or phone), changed phone numbers, moved, etc.
My site, on account creation, generates a password and sends it to you in email in cleartext before putting it in the DB. In that email is a link to reset the password; you can't log into the rest of the site until you've done so. The updated password (and the original) are stored encrypted in the DB.
If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm all ears.
Don't send the fucking password in plaintext.
Don't store the fucking password. If your database/application can read it, then it's decrypted at some fucking point. Don't fucking do it.
User creates account.
User provides password, username, email, etc.
You generate salt.
You generate a UUID (emailverificationUUID).
You create DB entry with username, email, HASH(password + salt), salt, emailverificationUUID, emailverified (0).
You email the user "Your account has been created, please click this link to verify your email address.".
Link contains the UUID. When clicked, the site performs normal login processes (prompt login if not logged in already) and then verifies that the UUID matches the UUID stored for the logged-in user, and sets emailverified to 1 for that user if so.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL
You're SO MAD!
Web support in apps is for cows, you are all cows, moo?
Mad cuz bad? Yeah, mad cuz bad.
Fuck off retard.
FROSTY PISS
<SUBJECT> IS FOR COWS YOU ARE ALL COWS MOO
HAPPY <DAY OF WEEK> FROM THE GOLDEN GIRLS
There's not a chance in hell that "myhouse_optout_nomap" would work.
You can either do "myhouse_optout" OR "myhouse_nomap". And they'll still ignore your preference.