ADHD & ADD have also positive effects on attention sometimes, it's just that average people rarely hear about them and often understand "disorder" to mean same as "weak" - one symptom of ADD/ADHD is called hyperfocusing, and it's negative effects are quite opposite from getting distracted - it means that you can be totally oblivious to even things that would normally grab anybodys attestion from what they are doing, but what you are focusing on is getting 150% focus.
I'm also talking out of experience - it's one of the good things with ADHD >:)
...jokes about perl being unreadable are childish and I usually tell such people to learn perl or shut up, because basing your knowledge on perl 4, one-liners for CLI & obfuscated perl contests does not give very professional image of their programming knowledge.
"Backward compatibility with earlier versions of Perl is not a goal".
Have listen to the FLOSS Weekly interview with the fellow working on Rakudo. They do intend to get perl5 modules running.
Yeah, that quote, taken out of contest and without even mentioning the planned compatibility mode (mentioned in same paragraph) is misleading and I can only assume that the poster is either really bad reader or just trolling.
There was never lack of religion, you are talking of the attempt to deny religions which, while it lasted, did a lot of bad, but I'm not sure what exactly do you think it did... but I'm guessing that you are assuming too much as usually when I hear something like this it seems that the person is associating intolerance for religion with all things that did go bad + all things that they think went bad - and often also ignore that not all socialist / communist (so called...) countries even try to kill religion and even that most of those that did also eventually gave up and realized that it was a futile attempt anyway.
Yes, it was really bad and I have no respect for what evil has resulted of religious intolerance (inflicted by anyone, including hatred against other religions and hatred against atheism). And no, I don't even know what exactly are you suggesting, the above assumptions are just that and what I really ask is to explain yourself - I'm not blaming you for anything in my text above, I can't, from what little you wrote, have knowledge of your personal views and what exactly you meant.
...also, some people can be jerks about these choices, like this poster replying about perl:
Perl is for programmers that like to pretend they know how to be sysadmins and don't need to share their tools with other sysadmins.
...that is such a load... while with shell scripting combined with *nix tools you can get far, there are limits - scripts are great when used where they best fit, and sometimes the cost of hackish solutions around limitations, costs of taking tools beyond their optimal area, etc. are just too large to justify - except for doing something just for fun. Perl is a serious programming language, and even in sysadmin's scripts perl can sometimes be better than shell scripts (especially if it's not even meant to be shared with others), but there is also a point where a project starts to look more like program than script (not going into debating of the exact difference between those, I know anyone who can program probably knows what I mean), and that's one point where one should consider if shell scripting should give way to some other high level programming language. And as a high level programming language, perl has earned it's place, the above quote has no place in real world.
...not really expert on this so I can't estimate which solution would best for different purposes - perhaps they can reach even better performance / power / accuracy ratios for some things than you could with fixed/mixed low power but reliable solution, perhaps not... and probably depending on scenario:)
Yes, bash can do that, and I highly recommend learning not only bash but also plain Bourne Shell - still, if you want to create actual backup tool and release it, I'd go with Perl. If you want it to be cross platform and not limited to *nix systems in that, again perl.
If you haven't mastered the *nix tools mentioned, doing this with shell scripts, especially limiting yourself to plain Bourne Shell (Heirloom Bourne Shell is something to look into if your system, like linux distros, has/bin/sh as symlink to bash/dash), and those tools is a *great* learning experience, but another consideration for shell scripting vs. perl is speed and memory use. Consider these for making correct choice.
Also, there can be other reasons against perl and for shell scripting - want to be able to share it between *nix systems that you might not have perl, just for one. Shell scripting can be great for cross platform, but limits you to *nix likes, and often limits you to plain Bourne Shell - one of many things bash has but plain sh has not is hashes, and you can program a way around that, but it will be hackish, slow and resource eating - but it's also awesome experience:)
The crime is DUI because DUI creates a situation where an accident is likely to occur. Let me repeat - "an accident is likely to occur". If an accident does occur, it is still an accident. The driver deliberately decided to DUI, but the driver did not deliberately decide to cause an accident or to kill someone.
Sure he did.
To quote (and translate) an old finnish early 90's "rap" (so they called it) song: "if dog kills a child it's put to sleep, but a drunken driver only gets a prison sentence".
So "because there has not been much consequences for bullying there should be no consequences for bullying -> bullies are wictums!!!"? GTFO! Being a bully is a choice, and everyone knows that what they do is wrong - your proposing keep keeping to turn a blind eye to bullying.
The thing is, hate crimes are applied to terrorism - with all the bat shit crazy terrorist laws you accept in USA I would think - if I had not realized that most people don't exactly understand the meaning of word terrorism - I would think that you would understand why actions done to spread terror against otherS are treated differently from actions that target one individual specifically.
When your target is actually not that one people you kill, why expect to receive punishment for what you did only to that individual? You inflict harm to larger group of people - doesn't matter if they are minority or not, that's what hate crimes are about.
That's not homophobic in and of itself. Not without more context. (I hope you realize that)
If that's not homophobic, then what is? That my friend is pretty much a school book example for homophobic, and I fail to understand how you could possibly not see that.
You were a school bully, weren't you? Well, it's your kind who ruined large part of my youth - thank <deity/> I was *strong*, because not everyone survives through this. Everyone knows bullying is wrong, but nothing is done to stop it - really, most of the time it's treated just like you did there, with light talk about college "pranks", only most people realize that something is not funny when someone makes a suicide unlike you, but they still mostly fail to realize that bullying is a serious crime that often has long lasting, even permanent negative effects on victims life.
So don't give me this crap, jock boy - because I believe that bullying should be treated with severe punishments, not laughed off and labeled under "college pranks".
And like all other acceptable pieces of legislation, has been distorted to be what law enforcement/the prosecution wants it to mean at any particular time.
This was clearly not a hate crime. The target was an individual firstly. And the offence would be no different an offence if the guest had been an older man, an older woman, or some young woman in the same school (though the ultimate result may have differed). That Clementi committed suicide is unfortunate, but hardly Ravi's fault.
Hardly Ravi's fault!? Give me a break, fscker...
Signed, bi-sexual and victim of school teasing / bullies
What has voluntarily agreeing to share data through FaceBook (including data that you share through FB visiting other websites than FB) with other parties have to do with violation of privacy? And don't even start with "people don't understand what they agree with" - people who ignore TOS and click "agree" have only themselves to blame. And I don't deny having agreed to some TOS without reading it now and then - but I would never blame my ignorance on others.
Not only you have option to choose NOT to use FB if you want, in the end you are also in control of what data gets shared - and yes, I understand that not everyone understands how to control this by tools like noscript or even such simple stuff as choosing not to have your browser logged in FB 24/7, but even then you really don't have to even register a FaceBook account if you don't want to.
While I don't think that the only solution is absolute removal of any surveillance, even warranted, this simply has nothing to do with privacy invasion. Nothing. Nada. You can't blame me for violating your privacy if I read your public profile information on Slashdot, so stop being stupid (actually you can, of course, but would you expect to be taken seriously?).
I did not know that in USA a hostage situations are solved by blindly raiding a building - or is it not considered as hostage situation when someone is kidnapped in USA?
I forgot to mention, I had to borrow an old Nokia USB 3G "modem" from a friend once - when plugged in it first identified itself as flash drive with drivers for at least Windows and Linux and documentation for installing them. Even though everything else but documentation for switching it to another mode was obsolete for me (the linux drivers were for 2.4 kernel and 2.6 had drivers for it already) and the reguired configurations for Linux lacked everything else except ISP specific values to enter in pppd configs (it was old tech, one of the first 3G modems, and actual 3G, not 3/3.5G) I still thought that it was kinda cool - and since this can be implemented, yes, I would like it if USB devices could provide drivers for different systems like this.
Obviously it can be done correctly but it's mostly not done correctly as it is not done at all - and obviously when rarely done with malicious implementation to circumvent autorun blocking there are idiots behind it, and if they go that far to implement something like this it has little to do with most companies not doing it at all - I doubt the rest would jump from not providing drivers to writing malware.
Now autorun is being disabled completely on more and more computers, there are USB memory sticks popping up that pretend to be a keyboard and try to run their contents by pretending to be the user issuing a command to do so. This is the world we live in. Do you really want USB devices to be able to provide drivers?
Really? I don't know how laws against malware work in other countries, but clearly the laws have astonishing fundamental flaws if in any country they allow ANY chance of not getting convicted for doing something like this. Also the programmers responsible for implementing this or similar systems (like Sony rootkit) should be convicted personally - to protect themselves they could do the programming but report about it to authorities with protection for anonymity. It's clear, when you do extraordinary stuff to circumvent protections of underlying system, that to claim you didn't understand what your doing has anything wrong in it would be laughable defense - and it should be obvious that I'm not talking about software made to jailbreak/circumvent protections with users approval, there is a difference when software does something else than what it says behind users back, let alone is hidden on device that gives no reason to expect it to run software. With autorun at least I could accept software that asks your permission before doing anything else, but a device pretending to be a keyboard trying to implement "autorun" when OS has it disabled as a security feature, well, how is it possible, with laws already written against malware, that implementing this kind of stuff could be considered anything but malicious software done intentionally?
Also the penalty should not be next to nothing for a company nor people inside responsible for it, there should be correlation between assets and size of punishment.
Anyway, could you provide links for information about this? I would be interested...
Count me as insane as much as you like, but when you have a break from making love with Sony lawyers, please explain what you mean by "always online is there to combat hackers..." - maybe it's the insanity, but I don't understand, and yes, I believe it's very much about piracy and nothing else for parts where single player and private network gaming is artificially made to require "always online".
...but delusional/insane or not, I don't have to "suck up" anything - I have not and I will not buy games that require being online when there is no real need for it. I might buy a multiplayer game where official server is the only option and game server software is not available even for running in private network(s), but I dislike such practice and while possible, it's very unlikely that I ever actually will buy such games - I haven't so far.
Voting with your feet/wallet is not "sucking it up", however saying that something is unfair and then bending over is - at least I have some respect for you as your comment does not indicate you being such a hypocrite.
* Well, I know that there is a team called the "Red Socks" but I have no idea whether it's a baseball or football team, nor do I care about it enough to ask Wikipedia.
There's no such team in the NFL or the MLB. However, the Boston Red Sox are a professional baseball team (MLB). So, the one little fact you knew about sports was wrong. That's a shame.
There is also similar game in Finland called "Pesäpallo" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pes%C3%A4pallo ), and is known as "Finnish Baseball" in english - sometimes it's referred as Finlands national sport, but really does not get even close to ice hockey in popularity so I don't really understand why (apart from it being invented here).
Feel free to run 100% as root - or you could edit/etc/sudoers so that sudo won't ask password for nothing, which would still be safer than running as root, but IMHO stupid enough that you might just as well enable root login and make it your user account.
Anyway, for serious if you want it to ask less you should learn to configure sudo - you might want to alter the time it takes for sudo "session" to expire if you haven't used it again, or you might configure set of commands you want to be able to run with sudo without asking root password - leaving anything else to still require entering password. If that still feels too annoying - well, IMHO the system should NOT default to be like Windows, and you can still make it act like one if you want anyway (Linux allows you to be stupid if you want - you should have nothing to complain as there is a way to not only take it to both extreme ends but also anywhere between them).
We have account number + one time PIN sheet, which you get by snail mail and the account number is not printed on the same sheet. New sheet of codes is mailed after you have used up 2/3 of the codes, after which the rest will still work until you use the 1st one from new sheet instead.
Also, to protect you from phishing attempts or accidentally leaving browser open and not logging out, there is a second smaller set of PIN's on the sheet and actions you perform will need to be confirmed by entering the confirmation code assigned to random alphabet (A-Z). So a mediocre phishing site to collect login credentials will be pretty much useless and what they would have to do is to program the site so well that it seems to work normally, it would need to actually log in to your account on the server side and perform actions, then hope that you make a transaction too so that they can ask the confirmation code they are being asked for - and if you don't do transactions or other things needing confirmation, then not only will they fail to get anything but also the next time you get to the real bank page you will see that something was attempted as there is a request for confirming something you did not do.
To be honest, almost all stories I've heard of online banking in most other countries gets me baffled - I mean, how is it even possible that even in many 1st world countries this kind of disregard for safety is even legal, let alone also more like a rule than a horrible exception. Seeing that banks, off all things, act so ignorantly when it's well known how "secure" it is to trust the end user to not do something stupid or not have malicious software collecting login credentials, etc. I'm glad that at least here in Finland there is actually some rules that makes it mandatory for online banks here to provide something actually secure - though it's something I grew up to expect banks would obviously *want* to invest in anyway, seeing how things are in various other countries I don't know whether they actually would if there were no rules for it... I'd like to think that they still would, but I really don't know anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
ADHD & ADD have also positive effects on attention sometimes, it's just that average people rarely hear about them and often understand "disorder" to mean same as "weak" - one symptom of ADD/ADHD is called hyperfocusing, and it's negative effects are quite opposite from getting distracted - it means that you can be totally oblivious to even things that would normally grab anybodys attestion from what they are doing, but what you are focusing on is getting 150% focus.
I'm also talking out of experience - it's one of the good things with ADHD >:)
...jokes about perl being unreadable are childish and I usually tell such people to learn perl or shut up, because basing your knowledge on perl 4, one-liners for CLI & obfuscated perl contests does not give very professional image of their programming knowledge.
"Backward compatibility with earlier versions of Perl is not a goal".
Have listen to the FLOSS Weekly interview with the fellow working on Rakudo. They do intend to get perl5 modules running.
Yeah, that quote, taken out of contest and without even mentioning the planned compatibility mode (mentioned in same paragraph) is misleading and I can only assume that the poster is either really bad reader or just trolling.
There was never lack of religion, you are talking of the attempt to deny religions which, while it lasted, did a lot of bad, but I'm not sure what exactly do you think it did... but I'm guessing that you are assuming too much as usually when I hear something like this it seems that the person is associating intolerance for religion with all things that did go bad + all things that they think went bad - and often also ignore that not all socialist / communist (so called...) countries even try to kill religion and even that most of those that did also eventually gave up and realized that it was a futile attempt anyway.
Yes, it was really bad and I have no respect for what evil has resulted of religious intolerance (inflicted by anyone, including hatred against other religions and hatred against atheism). And no, I don't even know what exactly are you suggesting, the above assumptions are just that and what I really ask is to explain yourself - I'm not blaming you for anything in my text above, I can't, from what little you wrote, have knowledge of your personal views and what exactly you meant.
...also, some people can be jerks about these choices, like this poster replying about perl:
Perl is for programmers that like to pretend they know how to be sysadmins and don't need to share their tools with other sysadmins.
...that is such a load... while with shell scripting combined with *nix tools you can get far, there are limits - scripts are great when used where they best fit, and sometimes the cost of hackish solutions around limitations, costs of taking tools beyond their optimal area, etc. are just too large to justify - except for doing something just for fun. Perl is a serious programming language, and even in sysadmin's scripts perl can sometimes be better than shell scripts (especially if it's not even meant to be shared with others), but there is also a point where a project starts to look more like program than script (not going into debating of the exact difference between those, I know anyone who can program probably knows what I mean), and that's one point where one should consider if shell scripting should give way to some other high level programming language. And as a high level programming language, perl has earned it's place, the above quote has no place in real world.
...not really expert on this so I can't estimate which solution would best for different purposes - perhaps they can reach even better performance / power / accuracy ratios for some things than you could with fixed/mixed low power but reliable solution, perhaps not... and probably depending on scenario :)
Yes, bash can do that, and I highly recommend learning not only bash but also plain Bourne Shell - still, if you want to create actual backup tool and release it, I'd go with Perl. If you want it to be cross platform and not limited to *nix systems in that, again perl.
If you haven't mastered the *nix tools mentioned, doing this with shell scripts, especially limiting yourself to plain Bourne Shell (Heirloom Bourne Shell is something to look into if your system, like linux distros, has /bin/sh as symlink to bash/dash), and those tools is a *great* learning experience, but another consideration for shell scripting vs. perl is speed and memory use. Consider these for making correct choice.
Also, there can be other reasons against perl and for shell scripting - want to be able to share it between *nix systems that you might not have perl, just for one. Shell scripting can be great for cross platform, but limits you to *nix likes, and often limits you to plain Bourne Shell - one of many things bash has but plain sh has not is hashes, and you can program a way around that, but it will be hackish, slow and resource eating - but it's also awesome experience :)
The crime is DUI because DUI creates a situation where an accident is likely to occur. Let me repeat - "an accident is likely to occur". If an accident does occur, it is still an accident. The driver deliberately decided to DUI, but the driver did not deliberately decide to cause an accident or to kill someone.
Sure he did.
To quote (and translate) an old finnish early 90's "rap" (so they called it) song: "if dog kills a child it's put to sleep, but a drunken driver only gets a prison sentence".
So "because there has not been much consequences for bullying there should be no consequences for bullying -> bullies are wictums!!!"? GTFO! Being a bully is a choice, and everyone knows that what they do is wrong - your proposing keep keeping to turn a blind eye to bullying.
I get that, but that's basically thoughtcrime to me.
Well, you have a whole load of laws to oppose where motive affects the punishment with your definition of "thoughtcrime".
Indeed, but the haters are hatin, they don't care about facts, they just wanna keep hatin.
The thing is, hate crimes are applied to terrorism - with all the bat shit crazy terrorist laws you accept in USA I would think - if I had not realized that most people don't exactly understand the meaning of word terrorism - I would think that you would understand why actions done to spread terror against otherS are treated differently from actions that target one individual specifically.
When your target is actually not that one people you kill, why expect to receive punishment for what you did only to that individual? You inflict harm to larger group of people - doesn't matter if they are minority or not, that's what hate crimes are about.
That's not homophobic in and of itself. Not without more context. (I hope you realize that)
If that's not homophobic, then what is? That my friend is pretty much a school book example for homophobic, and I fail to understand how you could possibly not see that.
You were a school bully, weren't you? Well, it's your kind who ruined large part of my youth - thank <deity /> I was *strong*, because not everyone survives through this. Everyone knows bullying is wrong, but nothing is done to stop it - really, most of the time it's treated just like you did there, with light talk about college "pranks", only most people realize that something is not funny when someone makes a suicide unlike you, but they still mostly fail to realize that bullying is a serious crime that often has long lasting, even permanent negative effects on victims life.
So don't give me this crap, jock boy - because I believe that bullying should be treated with severe punishments, not laughed off and labeled under "college pranks".
And like all other acceptable pieces of legislation, has been distorted to be what law enforcement/the prosecution wants it to mean at any particular time.
This was clearly not a hate crime. The target was an individual firstly. And the offence would be no different an offence if the guest had been an older man, an older woman, or some young woman in the same school (though the ultimate result may have differed). That Clementi committed suicide is unfortunate, but hardly Ravi's fault.
Hardly Ravi's fault!? Give me a break, fscker...
Signed, bi-sexual and victim of school teasing / bullies
What has voluntarily agreeing to share data through FaceBook (including data that you share through FB visiting other websites than FB) with other parties have to do with violation of privacy? And don't even start with "people don't understand what they agree with" - people who ignore TOS and click "agree" have only themselves to blame. And I don't deny having agreed to some TOS without reading it now and then - but I would never blame my ignorance on others.
Not only you have option to choose NOT to use FB if you want, in the end you are also in control of what data gets shared - and yes, I understand that not everyone understands how to control this by tools like noscript or even such simple stuff as choosing not to have your browser logged in FB 24/7, but even then you really don't have to even register a FaceBook account if you don't want to.
While I don't think that the only solution is absolute removal of any surveillance, even warranted, this simply has nothing to do with privacy invasion. Nothing. Nada. You can't blame me for violating your privacy if I read your public profile information on Slashdot, so stop being stupid (actually you can, of course, but would you expect to be taken seriously?).
I did not know that in USA a hostage situations are solved by blindly raiding a building - or is it not considered as hostage situation when someone is kidnapped in USA?
I forgot to mention, I had to borrow an old Nokia USB 3G "modem" from a friend once - when plugged in it first identified itself as flash drive with drivers for at least Windows and Linux and documentation for installing them. Even though everything else but documentation for switching it to another mode was obsolete for me (the linux drivers were for 2.4 kernel and 2.6 had drivers for it already) and the reguired configurations for Linux lacked everything else except ISP specific values to enter in pppd configs (it was old tech, one of the first 3G modems, and actual 3G, not 3/3.5G) I still thought that it was kinda cool - and since this can be implemented, yes, I would like it if USB devices could provide drivers for different systems like this.
Obviously it can be done correctly but it's mostly not done correctly as it is not done at all - and obviously when rarely done with malicious implementation to circumvent autorun blocking there are idiots behind it, and if they go that far to implement something like this it has little to do with most companies not doing it at all - I doubt the rest would jump from not providing drivers to writing malware.
Now autorun is being disabled completely on more and more computers, there are USB memory sticks popping up that pretend to be a keyboard and try to run their contents by pretending to be the user issuing a command to do so.
This is the world we live in. Do you really want USB devices to be able to provide drivers?
Really? I don't know how laws against malware work in other countries, but clearly the laws have astonishing fundamental flaws if in any country they allow ANY chance of not getting convicted for doing something like this. Also the programmers responsible for implementing this or similar systems (like Sony rootkit) should be convicted personally - to protect themselves they could do the programming but report about it to authorities with protection for anonymity. It's clear, when you do extraordinary stuff to circumvent protections of underlying system, that to claim you didn't understand what your doing has anything wrong in it would be laughable defense - and it should be obvious that I'm not talking about software made to jailbreak/circumvent protections with users approval, there is a difference when software does something else than what it says behind users back, let alone is hidden on device that gives no reason to expect it to run software. With autorun at least I could accept software that asks your permission before doing anything else, but a device pretending to be a keyboard trying to implement "autorun" when OS has it disabled as a security feature, well, how is it possible, with laws already written against malware, that implementing this kind of stuff could be considered anything but malicious software done intentionally?
Also the penalty should not be next to nothing for a company nor people inside responsible for it, there should be correlation between assets and size of punishment.
Anyway, could you provide links for information about this? I would be interested...
Count me as insane as much as you like, but when you have a break from making love with Sony lawyers, please explain what you mean by "always online is there to combat hackers..." - maybe it's the insanity, but I don't understand, and yes, I believe it's very much about piracy and nothing else for parts where single player and private network gaming is artificially made to require "always online".
...but delusional/insane or not, I don't have to "suck up" anything - I have not and I will not buy games that require being online when there is no real need for it. I might buy a multiplayer game where official server is the only option and game server software is not available even for running in private network(s), but I dislike such practice and while possible, it's very unlikely that I ever actually will buy such games - I haven't so far.
Voting with your feet/wallet is not "sucking it up", however saying that something is unfair and then bending over is - at least I have some respect for you as your comment does not indicate you being such a hypocrite.
* Well, I know that there is a team called the "Red Socks" but I have no idea whether it's a baseball or football team, nor do I care about it enough to ask Wikipedia.
There's no such team in the NFL or the MLB. However, the Boston Red Sox are a professional baseball team (MLB). So, the one little fact you knew about sports was wrong. That's a shame.
Is it not often *called* just "the Red Socks"?
There is also similar game in Finland called "Pesäpallo" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pes%C3%A4pallo ), and is known as "Finnish Baseball" in english - sometimes it's referred as Finlands national sport, but really does not get even close to ice hockey in popularity so I don't really understand why (apart from it being invented here).
Not to mention stupid!
Feel free to run 100% as root - or you could edit /etc/sudoers so that sudo won't ask password for nothing, which would still be safer than running as root, but IMHO stupid enough that you might just as well enable root login and make it your user account.
Anyway, for serious if you want it to ask less you should learn to configure sudo - you might want to alter the time it takes for sudo "session" to expire if you haven't used it again, or you might configure set of commands you want to be able to run with sudo without asking root password - leaving anything else to still require entering password. If that still feels too annoying - well, IMHO the system should NOT default to be like Windows, and you can still make it act like one if you want anyway (Linux allows you to be stupid if you want - you should have nothing to complain as there is a way to not only take it to both extreme ends but also anywhere between them).
We have account number + one time PIN sheet, which you get by snail mail and the account number is not printed on the same sheet. New sheet of codes is mailed after you have used up 2/3 of the codes, after which the rest will still work until you use the 1st one from new sheet instead.
Also, to protect you from phishing attempts or accidentally leaving browser open and not logging out, there is a second smaller set of PIN's on the sheet and actions you perform will need to be confirmed by entering the confirmation code assigned to random alphabet (A-Z). So a mediocre phishing site to collect login credentials will be pretty much useless and what they would have to do is to program the site so well that it seems to work normally, it would need to actually log in to your account on the server side and perform actions, then hope that you make a transaction too so that they can ask the confirmation code they are being asked for - and if you don't do transactions or other things needing confirmation, then not only will they fail to get anything but also the next time you get to the real bank page you will see that something was attempted as there is a request for confirming something you did not do.
To be honest, almost all stories I've heard of online banking in most other countries gets me baffled - I mean, how is it even possible that even in many 1st world countries this kind of disregard for safety is even legal, let alone also more like a rule than a horrible exception. Seeing that banks, off all things, act so ignorantly when it's well known how "secure" it is to trust the end user to not do something stupid or not have malicious software collecting login credentials, etc. I'm glad that at least here in Finland there is actually some rules that makes it mandatory for online banks here to provide something actually secure - though it's something I grew up to expect banks would obviously *want* to invest in anyway, seeing how things are in various other countries I don't know whether they actually would if there were no rules for it... I'd like to think that they still would, but I really don't know anymore.