I cannot stress how important special symbols are if you don't want a password cracker to work. If you pop default OPH XP Cracking disk in a drive the only thing (bar a locked bios and no boot from disk) that is going to stop you is a special character. In many real life situations "#" is a safer password then "ajrfvd".
What claims? And then you go on to explain how bad this utility is at actually estimating this. The easiest way to estimate the time it would take to crack a password is to measure its length but crackers don't just use brute force and this utility does not know that you use the same dictionary based password with modifications.
But one password cannot be easily broken if it is well picked and not written anywhere.
This is the absolute safest situation in my opinion, and if you have a 6-8 character completely random password with special characters and all that other nice stuff then it is impossible to get your other passwords.
If it is made up or only 4 tokens that can be learned through finding just one or your passwords once or a dictionary attack. Compare those 4 tokens to the 90ish characters I have to choose from on a normal keyboard.
That is like saying 1234567891011121314151617 is a great password because it is long.
If that password is made up of 4 reused tokens that are can both be learned through getting ahold of just one of your passwords once or though a dictionary attack.
That is like saying 12345678910111213141516 is a great unbeatable password because it is long.
Well you simply cannot memorise all the passwords that a modern computer user has to use no matter what style you use if you are not taking risks or a memory expert. That is why you need password vaults, or post it notes.
It is 6 max because you should never need a longer password for a website. After a small handful of wrong tries your account will be locked, so unless your are an idiot and you password can be correctly guessed in 5 tries, then 6 is actually far more characters then you need. the good thing about enforcing a small password is that it at least prevents some stupid passwords, and can in many cases prevent using other site's passwords. So you could say that policy could make it statistically safer.
And we have absolutely no proof that they ever will be able to effectively monetise Facebook or that it is even possible to the extent that all of these optimists believe that it will be.
Right now Facebook's value is 99% smoke and mirrors, and I would never invest in it.
Yes and No. Labour is cheaper in other countries and this does not mean that they are worse workers or unqualified.
But it does mean that you will necessarily be working with people who care less about the finished product and who you have almost no oversight of.
They might be working two or more jobs at the same times, and even if you are paying them for 8-12 hour days they might only be working 4 for you. There will likely be a communication barrier, my old boss used to spend 4+ hours a day trying to explain what he wanted our outsourced team to do the following day. Also, being an entire world away they can hold your code hostage. You will probably want them to constantly unload their work to servers you have absoluter control over. Because the last thing you want is for your relationship with them to break down and for them to refuse to sent you their work thus far.
But I guess if you have 30 million dollars to spend you will find someone who will take it. But look at their profile (https://www.facebook.com/motorola) there is no indication that any money was spent on it, it looks like they have some minimum wage guy posting stupid, occasional, Motorola related articles.
If I was them I would hire a small team, maybe one person, to manage the Facebook account and other online social media places. Other then travelling expenses and cameras (if they want to get really fancy and do real reporting), they would not need expenses. It would cost less then $100K a year and be just as effective.
I would say that the bias is not so much positive as it is "get noticed and get more grant money" biased. Unfortunately, you get noticed more and get more grant money if you find what you were looking for instead of disproving your initial hypothesis.
Also this article seems to imply that the problem that needs to be fixed is that of public trust, while I would argue that the public should distrust a community that gets it wrong so often (it is the skeptical, scientific thing to do). Unfortunately, far too many people have the opinion that science is absolute truth and always right; but science is not an "exact science" so to speak, scientists overlook variables all the time and prove what they want to prove just as readily as everyone else.
I feel like I must be missing something here. I believe insulin pumps are worn externally and not surgically inserted and it should be a very small matter to take one off to get through a screening or even for the entire flight.
I agree the Entitlement of the studios. I am ENTITLED to withhold this entertainment from people even if not doing so DOES NOT HURT ME in the least. A pretty entitled, sadistic attitude to be sure.
Do you know the definition of a economic bubble? Because it is a perfectly reasonable to theorise and probably correct to say that KS is in a bubble. If it will burst or just level out is the only real question here.
Yes and No Since the money will already have been spent, most developers would not want to throw more money after bad even if it were right. But I imagine that the KSs might be able to sue the developer for damages over his breaking of the contract.
But it all depends on how big the failed projects are and how big the failure is. I image they are legally obliged to deliver so I imagine all/most failed projects will deliver something, if what they deliver is worth anything that will be the question. And of course KS could be used to scam, we have no way of kn ow if the developer has any intention of delivering.
That is why in my opinion KS is best for known developers wanting to do bigger then normal projects, have more freedom, or to fund project that publishers will not; And is not a great new way for ambitious new developers to get into the field.
Straight from the mouth and Facebook page of a Australia Liberal politician. "it's probably best you relocate your interaction to sites more suited to your ideological perspectives. This is a supporter's site for a Liberal Campaign after all." - Andrew Nikolic
When a Liberal politician openly admits that he has no interest is listening to or even allowing you to continue talking about issues that he disagrees with (and even continually threatens those who disagree with him [earlier in that same comment he threatens to contact the students university]), what hope is there for the future?
No, everyone we paid for at the very least seemed technically qualified for the job. The problem was that several other companies were also paying them to work full time for them. We found out, and one thing lead to another and they withheld all the work they had done on the project thus far.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot stress how important special symbols are if you don't want a password cracker to work.
If you pop default OPH XP Cracking disk in a drive the only thing (bar a locked bios and no boot from disk) that is going to stop you is a special character. In many real life situations "#" is a safer password then "ajrfvd".
What claims?
And then you go on to explain how bad this utility is at actually estimating this.
The easiest way to estimate the time it would take to crack a password is to measure its length but crackers don't just use brute force and this utility does not know that you use the same dictionary based password with modifications.
But one password cannot be easily broken if it is well picked and not written anywhere.
This is the absolute safest situation in my opinion, and if you have a 6-8 character completely random password with special characters and all that other nice stuff then it is impossible to get your other passwords.
If it is made up or only 4 tokens that can be learned through finding just one or your passwords once or a dictionary attack. Compare those 4 tokens to the 90ish characters I have to choose from on a normal keyboard.
That is like saying 1234567891011121314151617 is a great password because it is long.
If that password is made up of 4 reused tokens that are can both be learned through getting ahold of just one of your passwords once or though a dictionary attack.
That is like saying 12345678910111213141516 is a great unbeatable password because it is long.
Just like I said, no way to do it safely. That has about the same amount of entropy as a single character password.
Well you simply cannot memorise all the passwords that a modern computer user has to use no matter what style you use if you are not taking risks or a memory expert. That is why you need password vaults, or post it notes.
What is stupid is when you encounter ridiculously high minimum lengths. Once, for some stupid forum, I had to have a minimum length of 22 characters.
It is 6 max because you should never need a longer password for a website.
After a small handful of wrong tries your account will be locked, so unless your are an idiot and you password can be correctly guessed in 5 tries, then 6 is actually far more characters then you need.
the good thing about enforcing a small password is that it at least prevents some stupid passwords, and can in many cases prevent using other site's passwords. So you could say that policy could make it statistically safer.
And how is memorizing a 6-8 digit random character password hard?
So if the law they are suing under allows a maximum of $10,000 per claimant then how did they ever arrive at $15 billion split between just 21 people?
And we have absolutely no proof that they ever will be able to effectively monetise Facebook or that it is even possible to the extent that all of these optimists believe that it will be.
Right now Facebook's value is 99% smoke and mirrors, and I would never invest in it.
Yes and No.
Labour is cheaper in other countries and this does not mean that they are worse workers or unqualified.
But it does mean that you will necessarily be working with people who care less about the finished product and who you have almost no oversight of.
They might be working two or more jobs at the same times, and even if you are paying them for 8-12 hour days they might only be working 4 for you.
There will likely be a communication barrier, my old boss used to spend 4+ hours a day trying to explain what he wanted our outsourced team to do the following day.
Also, being an entire world away they can hold your code hostage. You will probably want them to constantly unload their work to servers you have absoluter control over. Because the last thing you want is for your relationship with them to break down and for them to refuse to sent you their work thus far.
Ya, it is ridiculous.
But I guess if you have 30 million dollars to spend you will find someone who will take it. But look at their profile (https://www.facebook.com/motorola) there is no indication that any money was spent on it, it looks like they have some minimum wage guy posting stupid, occasional, Motorola related articles.
If I was them I would hire a small team, maybe one person, to manage the Facebook account and other online social media places. Other then travelling expenses and cameras (if they want to get really fancy and do real reporting), they would not need expenses.
It would cost less then $100K a year and be just as effective.
Cheaper to burn out the old ones can get some new one for less then keep giving raises to your current employees.
I would say that the bias is not so much positive as it is "get noticed and get more grant money" biased.
Unfortunately, you get noticed more and get more grant money if you find what you were looking for instead of disproving your initial hypothesis.
Also this article seems to imply that the problem that needs to be fixed is that of public trust, while I would argue that the public should distrust a community that gets it wrong so often (it is the skeptical, scientific thing to do). Unfortunately, far too many people have the opinion that science is absolute truth and always right; but science is not an "exact science" so to speak, scientists overlook variables all the time and prove what they want to prove just as readily as everyone else.
of a spy drone that does not have the any spy equipment on and in which you cannot retain some of the footage?
I feel like I must be missing something here.
I believe insulin pumps are worn externally and not surgically inserted and it should be a very small matter to take one off to get through a screening or even for the entire flight.
I agree the Entitlement of the studios.
I am ENTITLED to withhold this entertainment from people even if not doing so DOES NOT HURT ME in the least.
A pretty entitled, sadistic attitude to be sure.
So when did legal fines turn into taxes on illegal operations.
Do you know the definition of a economic bubble? Because it is a perfectly reasonable to theorise and probably correct to say that KS is in a bubble.
If it will burst or just level out is the only real question here.
Yes and No
Since the money will already have been spent, most developers would not want to throw more money after bad even if it were right.
But I imagine that the KSs might be able to sue the developer for damages over his breaking of the contract.
But it all depends on how big the failed projects are and how big the failure is.
I image they are legally obliged to deliver so I imagine all/most failed projects will deliver something, if what they deliver is worth anything that will be the question.
And of course KS could be used to scam, we have no way of kn ow if the developer has any intention of delivering.
That is why in my opinion KS is best for known developers wanting to do bigger then normal projects, have more freedom, or to fund project that publishers will not; And is not a great new way for ambitious new developers to get into the field.
Straight from the mouth and Facebook page of a Australia Liberal politician.
"it's probably best you relocate your interaction to sites more suited to your ideological perspectives. This is a supporter's site for a Liberal Campaign after all." - Andrew Nikolic
When a Liberal politician openly admits that he has no interest is listening to or even allowing you to continue talking about issues that he disagrees with (and even continually threatens those who disagree with him [earlier in that same comment he threatens to contact the students university]), what hope is there for the future?
No, everyone we paid for at the very least seemed technically qualified for the job.
The problem was that several other companies were also paying them to work full time for them.
We found out, and one thing lead to another and they withheld all the work they had done on the project thus far.