The headline says "passwords" yet this is about patterns. Specifically, this is about the ~400,000 possible patterns you can get from a 3x3 pattern grid on Android.
OH WAIT IT'S NOT It's about twelve specific ones.
Researchers used a microphone and speaker to record 10 different people performing each of the 12 most distinct patterns possible unlock patterns on a 3x3 grid 5 times each. On that data set of 600 recordings, their best-performing algorithm was able to get it down to an average of 3.6 pattern guesses until success.
Neat, maybe, but hardly a security concern. USE A FUCKING PASSWORD.
They're not proposing you use IP address (where the hell did you get that from?)
I'm guessing he got it from "Google wants to kill the URL".
1 - Without a URL, you're limited to IP addresses. On an IP network, anything that maps to or substitutes for IP addresses is effectively a URL. Thus, if you're killing the URL, your only option for accessing shit is via its actual address, port, and protocol.
2 - Did you all give up on the abortion that was forcing people to say URI instead of URL? I hope so!
I mean if you wanted to get rid of the bitching and moaning about Wyoming vs. California and how much each person's vote is worth, you need to set it up so that Wyoming gets a bunch of reps, say 10, for their population, then every other State gets 10 * Population / Wyoming Population reps.
This gets rid of the rounding errors we have under the current apportionment scheme where every state gets at least 1, then gets a number based on their population, with things fuzzed a bit. (You can't just set Wyoming to 1 and then scale from there, because what happens when a state is worth 1.5, 2.5, etc. Wyomings?)
How many reps total would fill the house? We've got a few hundred now and it's already circus. I believe DC would still be limited to 3 total EC votes because they've got a special rule in place.
You're a god damned retard and you haven't factually argued against anything I've said. The closest thing to an argument you had was pulling out an unrelated quote from Madison. Fucking wow.
There are states who proclaim that electors must vote for the person that won the election--it's a law. So if the majority of people in the state voted for some ass-hat, the elector must cast his or her vote for said ass-hat, even though they know he or she is an ass-hat.
That doesn't matter. The Electors can cast their faithless vote and it will still be valid. The State can throw them in jail later, or they can cry. They can't pull that vote back and change it.
I refer you to Sorry, You're Wrong. Impy the Impiuos Imp is correct. You may not like it, but there's no legal room to disagree or argue against it. It's part of the bedrock of the nation.
To change this shit you must first get an Amendment passed or call a Constitutional Convention. There's no other legal avenue.
It's the same with the Electoral College. We elect representatives that pick the President for us.
Somebody does not know how the Electoral College works, the representatives aren't choosing anybody, they are chosen who to vote for, not to make a decision.
The Electors have full autonomy and can place votes however they wish. Doing so in a way that doesn't match the State's laws and the outcome of the State's election is perfectly valid as far as the federal election is concerned.
If Candidate A won State X, and its Electors all voted for Candidate B, State X might try to imprison those Electors. But their votes for Candidate B stay.
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown. Electors elect the President. They may vote as they wish. The people have no legal weight in electing the President as far as the federal government is concerned.
Each State is allotted a number of votes. Electors represent the States and exercise those votes. They can vote in line with the election or not. They can award them all to the winner in that State based on popular vote, they can portion them out based on percentages, or they can pull shit out of a hat. The various States have their own rules regarding how this should be done, but the federal government doesn't care about each State's rules. The Elector is the one with the power. The worst that can happen is the State tries to imprison a "faithless" Elector that didn't vote in line with the State's election. Their faithless votes would still be valid.
Further, the allotment of votes to each States is based both on the State's population, meaning that the people are represented, and the fact that the State is a State, meaning that the State is represented. (Or, as in the case of DC, the voting district is represented.) The bicameral legislature is designed the way it is because it is JUST AS IMPORTANT for the STATES to be represented as it is for the PEOPLE to be represented. There's no opportunity to disagree here. That's the law. That's the design of the system. If you don't like it, leave or get to work on the Amendment or Constitutional Convention required to change it.
The most common complaints come from people in populous States. They claim it is unfair that their vote is worth less than the vote of someone in a less populous State. They are wrong. Their vote is worth the same. It is worth nothing. Assuming faithful Electors, however, their vote is worth about as much as anyone else's. Unless their State is stupid enough to tell Electors to vote in a winner-take-all scheme. Then the winner of the plurality in a contentious State gets everything, and a huge chunk of the population gets no representative weight in the election, while a very slightly larger chunk gets far more representative weight. So tell your State to get rid of the winner-takes-all system. Then go ahead and subtract Electoral College votes from each State before you try to figure out people per Electoral College vote. Remember - those 2 votes are representing the State (or voting district, as with DC) itself.
Then, if you're still pissed off about the apportionment, then go argue for the Wyoming rule (or something similar) to smooth out the rounding error. Remember to enjoy the ridiculous expansion of the House it would cause.
Aside from all that, your mention of slavery is entirely misplaced. You're likely referring to how the population of each State is counted when determining the number of Representatives to apportion to a State. The slave-owning Southern States argued slaves were people and deserved to be counted as a person. The free Northern States argued that a slave in the South was not a legal person and should therefore not be counted as a person. The bicameral legislature and the Electoral College are entirely separate things from this issue.
Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change
Please try to keep up. It's DEWs.
The fires in CA are being set intentionally. They burn incredibly selectively, and much hotter than any natural fire or any of the fuel in its way.
Wrong, jackass. The fires in CA are an issue because we no longer properly manage the land. Everything is protected bullshit full of nothing but dead, dry plants ready to burst into flame. Even if you want to assume they're all caused by humans, the fact is our policy of INACTION is what turns a small fire into hundreds of thousands of acres of hell.
1 - Formulating a disprovable hypothesis 2 - Developing a repeatable, controlled experiment with the goal of disproving the hypothesis 3 - Running the experiment to collect data 4 - Using the data to try to disprove the hypothesis 5 - Having others evaluate the experiment and repeat it themselves to validate your conclusions
The truth is "climate scientists" are flaky with step 1, skip steps 2 and 3, are total frauds with regards to step 4, and always want more grant money for step 5.
Stand back, I'm going to try SHOWING MY IGNORANCE WITH A SHITTY T-SHIRT.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
That's right, there is a huge multinational conspiracy of life long academics with tenure all hell bent on oppressing you by forcing more fuel efficient vehicles on you! And you saw through it all! Keep it up QAnon, you are doing God's work!
Also, know how I know you watch fox news? Climategate.
Uh, lifelong academics with tenure are a real thing and a real problem, and consistently manifest as a conspiratorial force. If you're in a tenure track position, you fall in line to make tenure or your appointment times out and you lose your job.
Further, current vehicles aren't more fuel efficient than old vehicles. They burn more cleanly, and that's good, but let's not pretend that came freely by the magic mandate of the benevolent and wise Governmento, and let's not ignore all the bullshit they've subjected us to.
I think a lot of it probably has to do with Google's workforce tending to be younger and perhaps fresh out of college. I suspect that most computer science programs have an ethics course that their students are required to take, but I suspect that it's a pretty worthless class that isn't well taught and that students don't take seriously. The moral compass of the young is not yet fully developed. I'd say it's even spotty at best in a lot of adults.
People have a strong tendency to believe that what they're doing is right, and that their cause is just. Ask anyone from either side of a protest where Antifa and various alt-right groups show up about why they're their and they'll tell you that it's because they needed to do the right thing. You could argue that they're both misguided in their own ways so it's not such a simple dichotomy, but the point is that everyone there believes themselves to be there for the right reasons.
I think that it's rather rare for people to take a step back and actually think about whether what they're doing is moral. Most people tend to just trudge on ahead until they suddenly find themselves up to their necks in a mire.
It's been quite a while since I got my degree, but I can confirm an ethics class was a requirement and I can also confirm it was a worthless class.
Thank you for being a friend Traveled down the road and back again Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you threw a party Invited everyone you ever knew You would see the biggest gift would be from me And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.
I propose a new standard for a secure internet markup and programming language engine. SIMPLE. If you want a 4-character file extension, you can go for SMPL.
It'll be secure because it says so right in the name of it. It'll be for the internet because everything is for the internet, and if it's not someone will take it and put it on the internet anyway. I'll be both for markup and programming, because apparently that's what we do now. It'll be both a language and and engine, because we can't seem to separate a language's spec and a given implementation to parse, render, or execute it anymore, and JAVASCRIPT "FOR THE SERVER" IS A FUCKING THING FOR SOME REASON.
Here's the current draft spec:
1: To start off, fuck your encodings and your content types and your character sets. As much as I hate it, we're just gonna fucking use UTF-8 and if your shit don't render fuck you.
2: None of this shit where we allow broken files. If a file isn't properly formatted it is to be considered malicious and outright rejected with no processing. You'll put closing tags for fucking everything and you'll like it. No trailing slash for empty tags. Put a damned closing tag.
3: No fucking cross domain anything. I don't give a shit. If you want your users to see and work with shit from another domain, send them there or rehost that content yourself and take responsibility for it. If you want to read information about your users as seen/set by another domain, go fuck yourself.
4: No persistent cookies or whatever else. Your users can log in and get session cookies, but once the session is gone you're back to square one. If you want to remember shit about them, then fucking store that shit on your server and associate it with their user ID.
5: No god damn auto playing anything without the user's explicit and specific active choice to do that.
6: At no time will a SIMPLE browser expose anything about its user other than what URL the user is requesting, what data the user is actively choosing to submit, and what minimal data the user is implicitly submitting in order maintain a coherent session across requests. No fucking battery API. No fucking list of plugins. No fucking advertising IDs.
8: Other than that it's basically XHTML and oh, let's say ActionScript.
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton actually won the majority of the voters over anyway
No she didn't. Further, that's not a thing to win.
The headline says "passwords" yet this is about patterns. Specifically, this is about the ~400,000 possible patterns you can get from a 3x3 pattern grid on Android.
OH WAIT IT'S NOT
It's about twelve specific ones.
Researchers used a microphone and speaker to record 10 different people performing each of the 12 most distinct patterns possible unlock patterns on a 3x3 grid 5 times each. On that data set of 600 recordings, their best-performing algorithm was able to get it down to an average of 3.6 pattern guesses until success.
Neat, maybe, but hardly a security concern. USE A FUCKING PASSWORD.
They're not proposing you use IP address (where the hell did you get that from?)
I'm guessing he got it from "Google wants to kill the URL".
1 - Without a URL, you're limited to IP addresses. On an IP network, anything that maps to or substitutes for IP addresses is effectively a URL. Thus, if you're killing the URL, your only option for accessing shit is via its actual address, port, and protocol.
2 - Did you all give up on the abortion that was forcing people to say URI instead of URL? I hope so!
No, that's not what I mean.
I mean if you wanted to get rid of the bitching and moaning about Wyoming vs. California and how much each person's vote is worth, you need to set it up so that Wyoming gets a bunch of reps, say 10, for their population, then every other State gets 10 * Population / Wyoming Population reps.
This gets rid of the rounding errors we have under the current apportionment scheme where every state gets at least 1, then gets a number based on their population, with things fuzzed a bit. (You can't just set Wyoming to 1 and then scale from there, because what happens when a state is worth 1.5, 2.5, etc. Wyomings?)
How many reps total would fill the house? We've got a few hundred now and it's already circus. I believe DC would still be limited to 3 total EC votes because they've got a special rule in place.
You're a god damned retard and you haven't factually argued against anything I've said. The closest thing to an argument you had was pulling out an unrelated quote from Madison. Fucking wow.
There are states who proclaim that electors must vote for the person that won the election--it's a law. So if the majority of people in the state voted for some ass-hat, the elector must cast his or her vote for said ass-hat, even though they know he or she is an ass-hat.
That doesn't matter. The Electors can cast their faithless vote and it will still be valid. The State can throw them in jail later, or they can cry. They can't pull that vote back and change it.
I refer you to Sorry, You're Wrong. Impy the Impiuos Imp is correct. You may not like it, but there's no legal room to disagree or argue against it. It's part of the bedrock of the nation.
To change this shit you must first get an Amendment passed or call a Constitutional Convention. There's no other legal avenue.
Regardless, the political landscape is such that a candidate receiving millions of votes less than another, can win the election.
Working as designed. We are a nation of States.
It's the same with the Electoral College. We elect representatives that pick the President for us.
Somebody does not know how the Electoral College works, the representatives aren't choosing anybody, they are chosen who to vote for, not to make a decision.
The Electors have full autonomy and can place votes however they wish. Doing so in a way that doesn't match the State's laws and the outcome of the State's election is perfectly valid as far as the federal election is concerned.
If Candidate A won State X, and its Electors all voted for Candidate B, State X might try to imprison those Electors. But their votes for Candidate B stay.
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.
Electors elect the President. They may vote as they wish. The people have no legal weight in electing the President as far as the federal government is concerned.
Each State is allotted a number of votes. Electors represent the States and exercise those votes. They can vote in line with the election or not. They can award them all to the winner in that State based on popular vote, they can portion them out based on percentages, or they can pull shit out of a hat. The various States have their own rules regarding how this should be done, but the federal government doesn't care about each State's rules. The Elector is the one with the power. The worst that can happen is the State tries to imprison a "faithless" Elector that didn't vote in line with the State's election. Their faithless votes would still be valid.
Further, the allotment of votes to each States is based both on the State's population, meaning that the people are represented, and the fact that the State is a State, meaning that the State is represented. (Or, as in the case of DC, the voting district is represented.) The bicameral legislature is designed the way it is because it is JUST AS IMPORTANT for the STATES to be represented as it is for the PEOPLE to be represented. There's no opportunity to disagree here. That's the law. That's the design of the system. If you don't like it, leave or get to work on the Amendment or Constitutional Convention required to change it.
The most common complaints come from people in populous States. They claim it is unfair that their vote is worth less than the vote of someone in a less populous State. They are wrong. Their vote is worth the same. It is worth nothing. Assuming faithful Electors, however, their vote is worth about as much as anyone else's. Unless their State is stupid enough to tell Electors to vote in a winner-take-all scheme. Then the winner of the plurality in a contentious State gets everything, and a huge chunk of the population gets no representative weight in the election, while a very slightly larger chunk gets far more representative weight. So tell your State to get rid of the winner-takes-all system. Then go ahead and subtract Electoral College votes from each State before you try to figure out people per Electoral College vote. Remember - those 2 votes are representing the State (or voting district, as with DC) itself.
Then, if you're still pissed off about the apportionment, then go argue for the Wyoming rule (or something similar) to smooth out the rounding error. Remember to enjoy the ridiculous expansion of the House it would cause.
Aside from all that, your mention of slavery is entirely misplaced. You're likely referring to how the population of each State is counted when determining the number of Representatives to apportion to a State. The slave-owning Southern States argued slaves were people and deserved to be counted as a person. The free Northern States argued that a slave in the South was not a legal person and should therefore not be counted as a person. The bicameral legislature and the Electoral College are entirely separate things from this issue.
If democrats are so "wildly unpopular" how did they win the popular vote by millions.
They didn't. There's no "popular vote" to win.
Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change
Please try to keep up. It's DEWs.
The fires in CA are being set intentionally. They burn incredibly selectively, and much hotter than any natural fire or any of the fuel in its way.
Wrong, jackass. The fires in CA are an issue because we no longer properly manage the land. Everything is protected bullshit full of nothing but dead, dry plants ready to burst into flame. Even if you want to assume they're all caused by humans, the fact is our policy of INACTION is what turns a small fire into hundreds of thousands of acres of hell.
That isn't true. Binary asshole over there said is was 90%, so it's 90%.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The scientific method involves:
1 - Formulating a disprovable hypothesis
2 - Developing a repeatable, controlled experiment with the goal of disproving the hypothesis
3 - Running the experiment to collect data
4 - Using the data to try to disprove the hypothesis
5 - Having others evaluate the experiment and repeat it themselves to validate your conclusions
The truth is "climate scientists" are flaky with step 1, skip steps 2 and 3, are total frauds with regards to step 4, and always want more grant money for step 5.
Stand back, I'm going to try SHOWING MY IGNORANCE WITH A SHITTY T-SHIRT.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
That's right, there is a huge multinational conspiracy of life long academics with tenure all hell bent on oppressing you by forcing more fuel efficient vehicles on you! And you saw through it all! Keep it up QAnon, you are doing God's work!
Also, know how I know you watch fox news? Climategate.
Uh, lifelong academics with tenure are a real thing and a real problem, and consistently manifest as a conspiratorial force. If you're in a tenure track position, you fall in line to make tenure or your appointment times out and you lose your job.
Further, current vehicles aren't more fuel efficient than old vehicles. They burn more cleanly, and that's good, but let's not pretend that came freely by the magic mandate of the benevolent and wise Governmento, and let's not ignore all the bullshit they've subjected us to.
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.
to the contrary, the models have fit the data to well within confidence limits, and continue to do so.
False. They don't even fit the "adjusted" data very well.
But if you can look at that and aren't the least bit alarmed
If you can look at XKCD and take it seriously, you're already done.
You might not have seen everything yet (believe it or not for a 20 yo)
Are you calling me a 20 year old? I wish!
I think a lot of it probably has to do with Google's workforce tending to be younger and perhaps fresh out of college. I suspect that most computer science programs have an ethics course that their students are required to take, but I suspect that it's a pretty worthless class that isn't well taught and that students don't take seriously. The moral compass of the young is not yet fully developed. I'd say it's even spotty at best in a lot of adults.
People have a strong tendency to believe that what they're doing is right, and that their cause is just. Ask anyone from either side of a protest where Antifa and various alt-right groups show up about why they're their and they'll tell you that it's because they needed to do the right thing. You could argue that they're both misguided in their own ways so it's not such a simple dichotomy, but the point is that everyone there believes themselves to be there for the right reasons.
I think that it's rather rare for people to take a step back and actually think about whether what they're doing is moral. Most people tend to just trudge on ahead until they suddenly find themselves up to their necks in a mire.
It's been quite a while since I got my degree, but I can confirm an ethics class was a requirement and I can also confirm it was a worthless class.
Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.
If he DVRs it, why would he care about commercial breaks?
I propose a new standard for a secure internet markup and programming language engine. SIMPLE. If you want a 4-character file extension, you can go for SMPL.
It'll be secure because it says so right in the name of it.
It'll be for the internet because everything is for the internet, and if it's not someone will take it and put it on the internet anyway.
I'll be both for markup and programming, because apparently that's what we do now.
It'll be both a language and and engine, because we can't seem to separate a language's spec and a given implementation to parse, render, or execute it anymore, and JAVASCRIPT "FOR THE SERVER" IS A FUCKING THING FOR SOME REASON.
Here's the current draft spec:
1: To start off, fuck your encodings and your content types and your character sets. As much as I hate it, we're just gonna fucking use UTF-8 and if your shit don't render fuck you.
2: None of this shit where we allow broken files. If a file isn't properly formatted it is to be considered malicious and outright rejected with no processing. You'll put closing tags for fucking everything and you'll like it. No trailing slash for empty tags. Put a damned closing tag.
3: No fucking cross domain anything. I don't give a shit. If you want your users to see and work with shit from another domain, send them there or rehost that content yourself and take responsibility for it. If you want to read information about your users as seen/set by another domain, go fuck yourself.
4: No persistent cookies or whatever else. Your users can log in and get session cookies, but once the session is gone you're back to square one. If you want to remember shit about them, then fucking store that shit on your server and associate it with their user ID.
5: No god damn auto playing anything without the user's explicit and specific active choice to do that.
6: At no time will a SIMPLE browser expose anything about its user other than what URL the user is requesting, what data the user is actively choosing to submit, and what minimal data the user is implicitly submitting in order maintain a coherent session across requests. No fucking battery API. No fucking list of plugins. No fucking advertising IDs.
8: Other than that it's basically XHTML and oh, let's say ActionScript.
Wired foreshadows the disclosure of the Foreshadow attack.