how would you feel if websites then had the power to selectively allow or disallow you access - to the whole site, or parts of it?
Why aren't they doing it, then? The technical point still stands. If you want to control what people can view, maybe develop your own protocol and don't freeride on HTTP which you didn't pay anything for? Same useless argument.
because I like supporting them explicitly through viewing their ads and sometimes even clicking on them
You support Slashdot by writing comments, since that's the real content, not some unedited/badly edited regurgitated "news" the monkeys put up.
Nearly all advertizements pay per impression (view) not per click these days.
See, that's the part I can't stand at all: scumbags trying to mess with people's brains.
We had informative ads once, where a honest producer quickly introduced his quality product and you made the decision to try it or not. These days, we have slimy weasels trying to manipulate our feelings, "generating desire" and whatnot for whatever shitty product they're trying to hawk.
All advertisers need to be shot. They're among the most dishonest and despicable people on earth, right after lawyers.
Of course if your clients are competent enough to modify a HOST file then you can probably just tell them to point their DNS client at Google's anycast DNS servers which respect TTL.
See, even in this case there should be no reason to touch the hosts file on a client computer.
Where did you read that I was saying the hosts file is useless?
You equate development work with expecting your clients(!) to modify their hosts file to compensate for the idiocy of ISPs and "forum admins"? Give me a break and get back under your rock. Thank you.
I make use of the hosts file for various purposes, including getting my forum users set up with hosts file entries to the new server, beforehand, whenever our DNS entries are changing so they can still reach the forum while changes are propagating. THIS is a prime example of why the hosts file still exists and the behaviour should not be fucked with by those assclowns at Microsoft.
No, it's a prime example of a bad IT person. If you had any clue about what you're doing, you'd lower the TTL prior to making the change, then make the change, then change the TTL back to normal.
Expecting random clients to modify their config to compensate for your incompetence is just dumb.
Yeah, seen by a dumb user, the output should probably be that. Seeing it as a consistent piece of software, however, it should delete everything from / downwards.
there's just no valid use case for 'rm -rf/'.
This is plain bullshit. There is a use case: "What happens if I do rm -fr / on a live system?" See? Use case. Counter question: What use case makes you delete complete current directories as root every so often?
The problem is exactly that for every stupid user working as root too often, there are workarounds, failsafes, side conditions introduced into perfectly working software. Imagine how many semantic possibilities exist to address / using symbolic links, parent directories, null mounts, whatever. If you try to catch them all, you introduce way more bugs than there are lines in rm(1) currently. In addition to that, you now proclaim your rm(1) now is idiot-proof against removing/. Guess what? A better idiot WILL come along.
If you can't operate a UNIX system without a nanny holding your hand, maybe try working as root less often. These stupid failsafe provisions are just useless cans of worms.
1) The ability to order goods using my credit card to be delivered to my registered address 2) The ability to order virtual goods using my credit card (music, ebooks, gift certificates).
You forgot
3) The ability to takeover your Apple account
So clearly, Amazon is worse than Apple because Amazon is Apple and more!
And no backups because the "Cloud" is the backup, right? HAHAHAHA. This is beyond stupid. Seriously.
If the best Apple can come up with against device theft is the ability to remotely wipe them, then their customer base deserves everything they get. Personal responsibility needs to be burned into those morons with pain. Lots of pain. Maybe then they'll pay attention to what the fuck they are doing.
It can't be code quality or else we wouldn't be talking in a thread about a meta-distribution "designed" to cover can't-be-arsed-to-fix crap, would we?
What makes you think the "salt" is known? It's the secret in this case.
I use this same approach with some refinements and I do it on a non-connected box because "mypassword" is the ultimate master key to the whole idea. It's not a salt.
Why limit yourself to 0-9a-f in the final output? What if you need to change a single password? That's why you pipe the binary(!) hash to base64 and add $iteration: more possible characters in the output and changeable passwords. Ideally, make iteration the date you "created" the password.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't. I'm on the "wrong" side of the fence for that.
Why aren't they doing it, then? The technical point still stands. If you want to control what people can view, maybe develop your own protocol and don't freeride on HTTP which you didn't pay anything for? Same useless argument.
You support Slashdot by writing comments, since that's the real content, not some unedited/badly edited regurgitated "news" the monkeys put up.
See, that's the part I can't stand at all: scumbags trying to mess with people's brains.
We had informative ads once, where a honest producer quickly introduced his quality product and you made the decision to try it or not. These days, we have slimy weasels trying to manipulate our feelings, "generating desire" and whatnot for whatever shitty product they're trying to hawk.
All advertisers need to be shot. They're among the most dishonest and despicable people on earth, right after lawyers.
Don't forget the malware.
Go ahead. I'm stopping noone from blocking me when I block ads.
Strangely, noone is doing it. So what do I care?
Perfect. Then they won't care that I don't download their ad if I don't intend to click anyway.
Sure, get your forum users to join your AD first. Call me when you've succeeded. /facepalm
I can see why all of your posts end up at -1. Lunacy at its best.
Sorry I don't read at -1.
See, even in this case there should be no reason to touch the hosts file on a client computer.
Where did you read that I was saying the hosts file is useless?
You equate development work with expecting your clients(!) to modify their hosts file to compensate for the idiocy of ISPs and "forum admins"? Give me a break and get back under your rock. Thank you.
So the answer to stupidity is more stupidity. Great IT skills.
Well, your post I replied to? Duh..
So you are tasked with the move of servers and you don't even control the DNS and you can't even coordinate with the "DNS people"?
You know you have to lower the TTL and then wait for at least as long as the old TTL was?
They're random clients as far as your control over them is concerned.
Moral of the story: Bad IT at work. q.e.d.
No, it's a prime example of a bad IT person. If you had any clue about what you're doing, you'd lower the TTL prior to making the change, then make the change, then change the TTL back to normal.
Expecting random clients to modify their config to compensate for your incompetence is just dumb.
Yes, done. Because rm ./* doesn't remove that, either.
Nice try, though.
Don't use sitename@... use sitename-$rnd@... with $rnd being 4+- random chars.
Makes guessing adresses harder in case some rogue forum admin tries to defame a competitor's forum or somesuch.
If you use your domain, why aren't you using battle.net-$rnd@$yourdomain, for example?[1]
The luxury of your own domain is precisely the ability to use one address per "consumer" and disable individual addresses at will.
[1] $rnd being 4 random chars to keep people who know your scheme from guessing websites you use.
Who writes ./*?
rm *
Done. If you beg to be shot don't complain afterwards.
Yeah, seen by a dumb user, the output should probably be that. Seeing it as a consistent piece of software, however, it should delete everything from / downwards.
This is plain bullshit. There is a use case: "What happens if I do rm -fr / on a live system?" See? Use case. Counter question: What use case makes you delete complete current directories as root every so often?
The problem is exactly that for every stupid user working as root too often, there are workarounds, failsafes, side conditions introduced into perfectly working software. Imagine how many semantic possibilities exist to address / using symbolic links, parent directories, null mounts, whatever. If you try to catch them all, you introduce way more bugs than there are lines in rm(1) currently. In addition to that, you now proclaim your rm(1) now is idiot-proof against removing /. Guess what? A better idiot WILL come along.
If you can't operate a UNIX system without a nanny holding your hand, maybe try working as root less often. These stupid failsafe provisions are just useless cans of worms.
You forgot
3) The ability to takeover your Apple account
So clearly, Amazon is worse than Apple because Amazon is Apple and more!
The fact that it's security by obscurity for starters.
You are making the algorithm the key which is bad.
And no backups because the "Cloud" is the backup, right? HAHAHAHA. This is beyond stupid. Seriously.
If the best Apple can come up with against device theft is the ability to remotely wipe them, then their customer base deserves everything they get. Personal responsibility needs to be burned into those morons with pain. Lots of pain. Maybe then they'll pay attention to what the fuck they are doing.
No pity for this fool.
Which is another problem these days.
Well where's the focus then?
It can't be code quality or else we wouldn't be talking in a thread about a meta-distribution "designed" to cover can't-be-arsed-to-fix crap, would we?
What do you mean, change? I never used Skype in the first place, _because_ it's an obscure binary blackbox.
What makes you think the "salt" is known? It's the secret in this case.
I use this same approach with some refinements and I do it on a non-connected box because "mypassword" is the ultimate master key to the whole idea. It's not a salt.
Bad algorithm.
Why limit yourself to 0-9a-f in the final output? What if you need to change a single password? That's why you pipe the binary(!) hash to base64 and add $iteration: more possible characters in the output and changeable passwords. Ideally, make iteration the date you "created" the password.
Better do
echo "$user:$domain:$masterpassword:$iteration" | openssl sha -sha512 -binary | base64"