The point that the author is making is that there should be some sort of option to allow you to specify this - "do whatever the hell you want, stop asking me if you can use it, I don't care."
He's making the point because, as he notes, a significant portion of the code on GitHub doesn't specify a license, which means it defaults to "all rights reserved," even though that's clearly not the intent of at least some portion of the "no-license" authors there.
The author cannot wish away the current IP law which is, as you state... "all rights reserved" by default. The reservation of rights is automatic on creation of any artistic work including code. Despite how the original author feels now, all users of code with undeclared copyrights are subjecting themselves to legal ramifications later if the orignal author ever changes their mind about licensing rights.
Random characters of upper lower case and numeric can be memorized by anyone up to 10 or 12 characters. These make the best passphrases. Simply use a program to randomly generate sets of 10 random values for you and select one.
Second, these passphrases should be used to unlock the set of keys you use for login. Login passwords to websites should not be something inside your head, because there is no possiblity you can ever memorize strong enough passwords for 20 or more websites. Passwords to website logins should be 64 random characters making any brute force attempts useless. Since website logins no longer use passwords in your head, you will not be able to login to say gmail from someone elses computer. Good! It is a bad security practice to type passwords into any device you do not own.
The real issue with passwords is that you need so many of them. People make and use weak passwords because there is no possiblity to remember a multitude of them. Or worse, they have a limited set of say 3 good passwords that they reuse across multiple 3rd party sites. How dangerous! The real issue with passwords is that websites allow you to type them from the keyboard. Websites should switch to a common mechanism of using local system keychaining software. Firefox is a good example of this, where the passwords are stored locally and strongly encrypted with a locally entered passphrase. The only part missing is for websites to stop allowing users to generate the passwords and force them to be long and strong random values generated within firefox itself.
Mega doesn't know what you're uploading... but they definitely care. Ad impressions will pay regardless of whether content is legitimate or not, but just like Megaupload their paid subscriptions (starting at 10EUR/month) will only sell if there's illegal content on the service.
Thats highly speculative. Besides in most countries, sharing owned content with people you know is not distribution and not illegal. Your country may have convinced you that what they decide is legal is also moral. But reality to share is to be human and compasionate. Massively distributing content to strangers is more murky. In either case, there is value and reason for their service. Specifically for those who would like to bipass the closed group of profit sucking distribution companies. For example, those selling content they own directly to consumers. 50GB is nothing to sneaze at and encryption isnt so bad either. I like what they are trying to do and I dislike what happened to them in the past. I wish this company success, because I think massive consumption and sharing of legal content will drive the value of illegal content down to a price people are willing to pay for through legal channels.
does chrome support a master key for website login credentials yet? Or are they still promoting the lie "a master key provides users with a false sense of security"?
Otherwise, although Chrome may be more advanced in some ways, it is a very "open" and thus insecure option who perfer to use login passwords that cannot be remembered inside our head... ie: strong passwords encrypted with weak memory passphrases.
If there was a common protocol in place to connect routers within a city the ISP could be bipassed completely. I dont understand why there is not a router system to pass messages between routers without ever using the Internet or an ISP. I live in a moderate city and I see dozens of routers in any location all the time. If most of these routers supported a protocol that provided free network services when they were not busy handling their own traffic, I would be able to communicate wirelessly with any other device throughout the city. All without the need to purchase bandwidth from an ISP. I mean I should be able to make a phone call from one smartphone to another without ever using my wireless provider or the Internet. Why is there no such protocol? Even if such a protocol was not fast enough for real time voice, it would be useful for chat and other message passing between devices and checking/sending email back and forth between my home router.
I dont completely understand the mobile network business. But I do understand wired internet. In our country there are generally two ways to get hi speed internet. Cable modem or ADSL through the phone company. That means there are only two players to compete for the hi-speed market. Data shows that the price of bandwidth is decreasing at 50% every 2 years. This means that over time, I should see a reduction in price for the same service or an increase in total bandwidth for the same price. I am not seeing this. I am seeing slow increase in price every year and a moderate increase in bandwidth to match it. This means that the profit margins for these companies are increase at the rate of the difference. It would be great if these companies competed for my business by offering true service at the cost they are paying. Of course this isnt happening. Instead I see the pricing is matched between each service and long 3 year contracts are pushed with a short term insentive to switch from one to the other. In my country the ISPs are sucking back the profits by holding bandwidth growth in check.
The value of the Internet increases every day. But this has nothing to do with my ISP. The ISP would like you to believe that they are an important factor in this value. In reality they are a great hinderance to what the Internet could provide to you at the cost they are charging.
I do hope at some point the ISP can be bipassed. For example, large numbers of wireless routers could be strung together in populated areas to provide great bandwidth that does not require the usage of an ISP services. I hope someone comes out with such a router system soon.
So stop using Google Products. Seriously, if you don't like it change or stop complaining. You don't have to use Google, Chrome, Android or any other Google Product. You choose it.
Thats exactly what I did. I probably love google more then the next guy, but I certainly won't use Chrome. During testing Chrome, I noticed that all my passwords where easily viewable by clicking Settings->Advanced->Manage Saved Passwords. All login passwords available in clear text without protection?? No thanks Google/Chrome. What a design flaw. Firefox fixes this by default allowing master password protection. Chrome designers say they dont offer this because it provides a "false sense of security". What a load of BS. As if locking the front door to ur home is pointless simply because you dont have bars over all the windows in your home. Utter nonesense. Every level of security is valuable. The only reason Chrome/Google do not protect your passwords is because they are pushing their own password management system through your Google login. They would prefer to handle passwords for you by making you only remember one password in your head to their password management system. They want to be the controller of all password management. As a result they are directly reducing the level of security for those who wish to manage their own passwords through their local browser application.
The problem is not that most people do not understand the concequences of their actions. Chrome will happily advise you to save login passwords for reuse whenever you login to a new site. Many will agree to have the browser remember this for them. But most will not understand what this actually means and how easy it now becomes for others to see these passwords. Most people will simply use the browser that looks and operates in a pleasing manner. Or use the one they are most accustomed to using elsewhere... like on a cell phone.
Now I am security concious. I run linux with individual user logins and have a separate account for general logins for friends or family to use. I have my PC lock automatically when screen saver kicks in. But I know this is not enough protection against a socially engineered attempt to gain access to my system and capture all of my passwords through the browser. Google chrome is a weak browser and was designed this way in order to further the long term goals of Google password management. There is no doubt about this in my mind. If you want to have your browser automatically store and fill login passwords to your sites... Chrome is not a functional browser.
I would love it if Google offered a real strong browser. But they do not. I will not use Chrome and advise you to avoid it if you want to use it to store long strong passwords for the sites you access.
I'm not sure if the quality of many cameras is high enough for retina authentication*. Someone might also show a picture of your eye in front of the camera and thus gain access. I still find your idea interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
*) Unless Apple comes up with Retina Camera;)
Just an idea here: why not show a moving target on the screen of the phone that moves in a unique way each time. Then the phone compares the motion of the eye tracking the target as well as the eye details in order to verify: 1. the eye belongs to the user 2. the eye is real because it tracks the target.
I dont know if this is realist... Im just saying, that maybe solutions are possible using the camera in video format to verify real and reactive objects instead of fake images
The best feature of the password is that it's in your head. You carry it around everywhere, and it can never be physically taken from you.
This proposed plan just makes cellphones that much more attractive to steal.
The worst passwords are in your head. If you can remember a password in your head, then it simply isnt long and random enough. Passwords in your head can be taken from you through deception, coersion or duress. No one is suggesting that digitally generated and stored passwords should not be protected by something inside your head, its just that using your head alone is far too weak. Most people can only remember up to 3 strong passwords. This results in repeated passwords over multiple sites. Reality is that the weakest password is the one in your head and that is the single password you should use to encrypt the set of strong passwords for actual site logins.
Furthermore, having digital passwords you dont type is strong against keylogging techniques. Since you are not actually typing site login passwords into your keyboard, the real password is never disclosed during logins. So even if the local decryption password is known, the keylogger users will also need physical access to the device storing these passwords to gain access to login to these 3rd party sites.
The WORST feature of the password is that it's in your head. I have 20+ login passwords between work and home, my security is lower because you have to simplify them to remember them. If we can find a way to escape the tyranny of passwords that can generally be cracked by anyone who's determined anyway it can only be progress. Not that I have any faith in any organisation to do it after many failed or barely passable attempts (biometrics, smart cards etc).
Ive seen a lot of websites that do not encrypt passwords. The majority of human generated passwords are weak and based on dictionary words with a number or two and some weak modification like leak. Also, I had the opportunity to compare passwords accross multiple sites and the same username often used the same password. What happens when people are forced to generate their own passwords, is not that they memorize 20+ logins, but rather they remember a maximum of 3 passwords and then reuse these over multiple sites. Forcing people to generate and remember individual site login passwords is weak because its just not possible for anyone to remember 20+ strong random passwords.
This from an idjut country that can't even spell 'METRE' correctly. 1 litre ( liters for US) of water = 1 kilogram of water = 1,000 cubic centimetres of water (so mr fractionator show me the imperial fractions for the same thing), so not so arbitrary huh. Of course the US should stick with imperial, that is the least that can be done to ensure generation after generation of USians suffer through memorising imperial conversion mwahaha;D.
Poor argument. Do you use "centre" or "center". Do you use "colour" or "color". Then ask yourself which country is holding onto the past just because that is how they were taught to do it.
Words are excatly what we choose for them to be. The english language is a horrible set of special rules. Reduction of these special cases is a positive thing and exactly what the spirit of metric is all about. I support America in the effort to make english a more phonetic language.
Add to this paper measurement, letter being 8,5x11 inches in north america but 15cm x 30 cm in Europe.
Really? At least 90% of the letters I receive are A4, which is 29,7cm x 21cm. I don't know any European paper format that has an aspect ratio of 2.
The ratio is root 2. The reason for this is obvious... rip any paper in half and the two piece will have equal proportions to the original.
29.7 / 21 = 1.414 (root 2)
rip in half => 21 / 14.85 = 1.414 (root 2)
This makes sense. In that a sheet ripped in half will produce two exactly smaller copies of the original. Now explain to me why the US use 8.5 by 11. Maybe it just "feels" right.
Metric is not arbitrary. The units have relationships to real physical constants. Read about it. I am not sure, but Imperial is likely based on real things too. For example, do you think there is a reason that 1 foot is approximately the size of a large male human foot? And in the UK, you may be measured in 'stones'. Do you think maybe this is a relationship to some stones of a particular size/weight? Furthermore, even in Imperial, units are related, like the BTU being energy needed to increase 1 pound of water by 1 degree farenheit. There are relationships in all units of measure... metric was just well thought out to be logical and precise in these relationships.
No one uses furlongs. Inches, feet, yards, and miles. Crap - there's probably not more than 1 in 1000 Americans who knows what a furlong is. Most will start fishing in their pants, wondering what the "fur" is all about.
That is exactly why metric is superior. Ive never used the decameter... but I know exactly what it is. Ive never heard anyone sight meause in Megameters, but I know exactly how long it is. What is a 'hectogram' I could tell you even though its never been used. Metric answers the question: how do I covert that unused unit of measure into something I know. Imperial does not.
To spell it out for you.. you only have to remember 10 prefix words in metric. And then there are about 6 base units or so to add to these prefixes. Like meter, gram, newton, juole, pascal, watt, and maybe some more if you are a scientist. Once you learn this by age 7, you will be set for life for understanding all obscure units of measure.
I know metric is superior to imperial, because I was taught both in school. Our country was in the process of conversion during my education. Given the choice, all students preferred metric over imperial. Its a fact that metric is easier. Yet it accomplishes the same goal, so it is better.
The weights and measures system you use doesn't make you more advanced or retarded (yes, retarded literally means the opposite as advanced) any more than say Chinese glyphs make them more primitive than using an alphabet. Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial, it's just a bit easier to do unit conversions with them.
There are many things that almost everybody does which are harder than other ways (the English language is full of all sorts of inconsistencies and things that just plain don't make sense,) but we just keep doing them because it's what we're used to.
The result of adding coversion calculations results in stupid outcomes.
Making things unneccessarily complex is stupid. Metric is superior to non-decimal unit systems. You know this, because your money is metric. Thats why there are 100 pennies in a dollar and why you call it a "cent". centi being the prefix meaning 1/100 of the base unit. The obvious advantage of metric is that the prefix language is standardized, so I am able to convert between measures of various scale without even knowing what the unit of measure means. I mean that I can convert between MegaJoules and PicoJoules without even knowing what a joule is. That combined with the fact that the metric system is directly divisible into the base unit of our numbering system... ie 10. To use any other system is to add complexity for no reason. To stick to this system is to reject or remain ignorant of the fact that easier is better.
I sometimes feel that the Americans fear agreeing with the rest of the world. Its like the only thing that defines America is their differences. Well this is a case where a difference doesn't make us "special"... in a positive way. It makes us "special" in the politically correct descriptive way. Or as you said... retarted.
Maybe it's proper that I point out here, that MS has reached that corporate "age" where they aren't going to grow a lot, or very fast, doing the same thing they've done since they were incorporated. It's time to diversify, moving into new fields. There is room for growth based on their old business model, but that is slowing. It won't continue indefinitely.
Right. If you say that Google collects more then Microsoft, you are simply stating that Google has many more users of their service then Microsoft does.
one of those companies has a business model that relies on gathering as much information about you that it can and selling it to advertisers.
the other one sells software.
Microsoft collects your information. It just doesnt do it as well as Google. One of the main benefits of Google over Microsoft is that they support open standards. If you were a web programmer, then you would understand why google is superior to Microsoft in terms of being "open". As a programmer, you can decide whether to code for Microsoft products or you can code for everyone else including Google. I sure would love it if Microsoft software disappeared tomorrow, because it would cut my work load in half immediately.
This is why I dislike hardware producers also providing the software. I wouldnt purchase a computing device where I cannot install a selection of 3rd party software. Preferably the 3rd party software should be open sourced so it is difficult for anyone to hide vulnerable routines in the code. It is far to easy for manufacturers to reduce functionality or security in order to further their own interests. Examples: you see this in the chrome browser, where google reduces login security in order to further their own google account login management service and apple products where music selection and ownership is channelled through their own offerings and competing offerings are limited or blocked.
Gamblers have been shown to be more likely to continue playing after a loss then after a win. I think it is a bad idea to manipulate someone who may be addicted to something by engaging with them through their addiction. If there is a serious problem here, then it should be dealt with outside the gaming realm. Here is an easy to find link on gaming addiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction. And here is a reason to encourage video game usage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM
All computer languages Ive seen are written in English. I dont usually see an option to download "the French version" of Pascal, although it was obvious named in honor of a French speaker. I often feel sorry for people who do not speak english who want to be programmers. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are programs that have translations for native function names like 'for', 'while', 'and' and 'if'.
If you want to write programs for a foreign audience, then learning to code so that your textual output is easily translated is the best bet. This is actually a very difficult problem, but worth working on. Google has a few pages dedicated to this discussion with helpful tips they have learned to assist you. Some things to consider are: 1. sentences and phrases are not ordered in the same way among languages... so if your code breaks sentences into parts for things like links and formatting, then the entire sentence will need to be structured so the variables are inserted in the proper order and location. 2. Punctuation is not the same and may appear in different locations around the text (this includes periods and commas). So even punctuation needs to be variable based on the language. 3. Numbers are expressed differently in order and punctuation. 4. Default units vary among cultures. 5. providing a simple an logical mechanism for determining a default language and allowing users to select the desired language is a tricky problem. good luck with it. 6. If your program is internet based, there are considerations of how to logically divide your pages between languages for search engine parsing. You can use language prefixes on domain or insert a language code into the url or you can rewrite the URL itself to be translated as wikipedia does. There is no standard.
If you are really looking to increase your value as a programmer by allowing your programs to reach a wider audience, then learning make your programs easily translatable is likely the best bet. Because in the end, no matter how fluent you become in a second language, the best international program you write will be the one that is translated by someone who speaks that foreign language as their primary language and English as a second language. Not by you translating it yourself.
English speakers represent about 1 to 1.5 billion people on this planet. Both Chinese and Spanish exceed this. However, economy probably German, French and Italian are more significant. It all depends on the target market. I wouldnt bother trying to figure it out and instead write programs that are easily translated. Then hire someone to translate all the required text and phrases in your program. Then hire native speakers of that language to test and report language issues.
If your are looking to communicate with foreign entities, then I suggest you learn a language that is most economically likely to benefit you. The obvious choices would be German, French, Spanish, Italian or whatever cultures you expect to interact with. Although I dont think this is entirely neccessary because most large companies will have a means of communicating with English speaking entities.
It feels strange when a company with true IP value sells for half the value of a company with no patents. Compared to the Instagram sale to FB for $1 billion. Instagram has no patents... simply a user base following that could leave at any time. Yet Kodak with a physical brand and history sells for so much less.
Also... as an experienced programmer. I will tell you that most of the time, you simply cut and paste the code into a separate window and then run tests on it with different values. I mean you need to understand the logic too, but often times, the fastest solution is to run simulation and tests to be sure your brain isnt missing some logical comparison. I rarely trust my brain to determine whether code is working as expected anymore. You set up sample cases and expected results and then run the sample through the code and compare results. This adds great efficiency to confirmation and speeds up the process of verifying coding changes. Also, it proves the case where the logic has intentionally been changed as the logical changes will be flagged and then the tests can be modified after to match the new logic.
Therefore, correct understanding of the results doesnt matter as much as understanding what the code does. Although the experienced programmer produced incorrect output, understanding of the code process was quicker. A simple execution of the code will show the results do not match wat Eric expected and then a re-reading of the code will show why.
An experienced programmer will know: looking at code is not enough to verify code results. Our brains are not that fast or accurate
Eric the expert did get it wrong. I think the reason is that Eric expected more complexity then was present. What Eric did is use the output of the first two loop as input to the 3rd. Whereas, the sample simply used the inputs of the first and second routine as inputs to the 3rd. This is exactly what happened in my though process as I followed the novices work. I thought she was writting the incorrect values, until I realized that the inputs to the 3rd were the inputs of the 1st and 2nd. I consider myself an experienced programmer, although Im not sure about the definition. Anyhow, perhaps more experience programmers will expect a program to more often build up results based on the processing of a previous step. When I first saw this sample... my immediate instinct was to assume that each loop block would build on the output from the last. That assumptions was incorrect. And that assumption is apparent in the incorrect results produced by the experienced programmer named Eric in the 2nd video.
...Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability. This is one of the worst aspects of the Linux community...
So, you are saying this is not a problem with other operating systems because the user (no matter how experienced) doesnt even have the ability to try? You're saying that a major flaw with open software is that most users dont know how to take advantage of its openess? ok. I guess it is true that an advantage to having a close source operating system is that we dont have to worry any longer that some users may not understand how to modify its source code.
Slashdot Mirror
The point that the author is making is that there should be some sort of option to allow you to specify this - "do whatever the hell you want, stop asking me if you can use it, I don't care."
He's making the point because, as he notes, a significant portion of the code on GitHub doesn't specify a license, which means it defaults to "all rights reserved," even though that's clearly not the intent of at least some portion of the "no-license" authors there.
The author should instead be encouraging GitHub to make the default license be: http://creativecommons.org/about/pdm
The author cannot wish away the current IP law which is, as you state... "all rights reserved" by default. The reservation of rights is automatic on creation of any artistic work including code. Despite how the original author feels now, all users of code with undeclared copyrights are subjecting themselves to legal ramifications later if the orignal author ever changes their mind about licensing rights.
also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Patent_issues
Before you get upset about this, you should know that he has been offered a job at the very company making the software he exploited. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/22/student-expelled-after-he-discovered-flaw-in-schools-data-security-was-warned-twice-college-says/
Random characters of upper lower case and numeric can be memorized by anyone up to 10 or 12 characters. These make the best passphrases. Simply use a program to randomly generate sets of 10 random values for you and select one.
Second, these passphrases should be used to unlock the set of keys you use for login. Login passwords to websites should not be something inside your head, because there is no possiblity you can ever memorize strong enough passwords for 20 or more websites. Passwords to website logins should be 64 random characters making any brute force attempts useless. Since website logins no longer use passwords in your head, you will not be able to login to say gmail from someone elses computer. Good! It is a bad security practice to type passwords into any device you do not own.
The real issue with passwords is that you need so many of them. People make and use weak passwords because there is no possiblity to remember a multitude of them. Or worse, they have a limited set of say 3 good passwords that they reuse across multiple 3rd party sites. How dangerous! The real issue with passwords is that websites allow you to type them from the keyboard. Websites should switch to a common mechanism of using local system keychaining software. Firefox is a good example of this, where the passwords are stored locally and strongly encrypted with a locally entered passphrase. The only part missing is for websites to stop allowing users to generate the passwords and force them to be long and strong random values generated within firefox itself.
Mega doesn't know what you're uploading... but they definitely care. Ad impressions will pay regardless of whether content is legitimate or not, but just like Megaupload their paid subscriptions (starting at 10EUR/month) will only sell if there's illegal content on the service.
Thats highly speculative. Besides in most countries, sharing owned content with people you know is not distribution and not illegal. Your country may have convinced you that what they decide is legal is also moral. But reality to share is to be human and compasionate. Massively distributing content to strangers is more murky. In either case, there is value and reason for their service. Specifically for those who would like to bipass the closed group of profit sucking distribution companies. For example, those selling content they own directly to consumers. 50GB is nothing to sneaze at and encryption isnt so bad either. I like what they are trying to do and I dislike what happened to them in the past. I wish this company success, because I think massive consumption and sharing of legal content will drive the value of illegal content down to a price people are willing to pay for through legal channels.
does chrome support a master key for website login credentials yet? Or are they still promoting the lie "a master key provides users with a false sense of security"? Otherwise, although Chrome may be more advanced in some ways, it is a very "open" and thus insecure option who perfer to use login passwords that cannot be remembered inside our head... ie: strong passwords encrypted with weak memory passphrases.
If there was a common protocol in place to connect routers within a city the ISP could be bipassed completely. I dont understand why there is not a router system to pass messages between routers without ever using the Internet or an ISP. I live in a moderate city and I see dozens of routers in any location all the time. If most of these routers supported a protocol that provided free network services when they were not busy handling their own traffic, I would be able to communicate wirelessly with any other device throughout the city. All without the need to purchase bandwidth from an ISP. I mean I should be able to make a phone call from one smartphone to another without ever using my wireless provider or the Internet. Why is there no such protocol? Even if such a protocol was not fast enough for real time voice, it would be useful for chat and other message passing between devices and checking/sending email back and forth between my home router.
I dont completely understand the mobile network business. But I do understand wired internet. In our country there are generally two ways to get hi speed internet. Cable modem or ADSL through the phone company. That means there are only two players to compete for the hi-speed market. Data shows that the price of bandwidth is decreasing at 50% every 2 years. This means that over time, I should see a reduction in price for the same service or an increase in total bandwidth for the same price. I am not seeing this. I am seeing slow increase in price every year and a moderate increase in bandwidth to match it. This means that the profit margins for these companies are increase at the rate of the difference. It would be great if these companies competed for my business by offering true service at the cost they are paying. Of course this isnt happening. Instead I see the pricing is matched between each service and long 3 year contracts are pushed with a short term insentive to switch from one to the other. In my country the ISPs are sucking back the profits by holding bandwidth growth in check.
The value of the Internet increases every day. But this has nothing to do with my ISP. The ISP would like you to believe that they are an important factor in this value. In reality they are a great hinderance to what the Internet could provide to you at the cost they are charging.
I do hope at some point the ISP can be bipassed. For example, large numbers of wireless routers could be strung together in populated areas to provide great bandwidth that does not require the usage of an ISP services. I hope someone comes out with such a router system soon.
So stop using Google Products. Seriously, if you don't like it change or stop complaining. You don't have to use Google, Chrome, Android or any other Google Product. You choose it.
Thats exactly what I did. I probably love google more then the next guy, but I certainly won't use Chrome. During testing Chrome, I noticed that all my passwords where easily viewable by clicking Settings->Advanced->Manage Saved Passwords. All login passwords available in clear text without protection?? No thanks Google/Chrome. What a design flaw. Firefox fixes this by default allowing master password protection. Chrome designers say they dont offer this because it provides a "false sense of security". What a load of BS. As if locking the front door to ur home is pointless simply because you dont have bars over all the windows in your home. Utter nonesense. Every level of security is valuable. The only reason Chrome/Google do not protect your passwords is because they are pushing their own password management system through your Google login. They would prefer to handle passwords for you by making you only remember one password in your head to their password management system. They want to be the controller of all password management. As a result they are directly reducing the level of security for those who wish to manage their own passwords through their local browser application.
The problem is not that most people do not understand the concequences of their actions. Chrome will happily advise you to save login passwords for reuse whenever you login to a new site. Many will agree to have the browser remember this for them. But most will not understand what this actually means and how easy it now becomes for others to see these passwords. Most people will simply use the browser that looks and operates in a pleasing manner. Or use the one they are most accustomed to using elsewhere... like on a cell phone.
Now I am security concious. I run linux with individual user logins and have a separate account for general logins for friends or family to use. I have my PC lock automatically when screen saver kicks in. But I know this is not enough protection against a socially engineered attempt to gain access to my system and capture all of my passwords through the browser. Google chrome is a weak browser and was designed this way in order to further the long term goals of Google password management. There is no doubt about this in my mind. If you want to have your browser automatically store and fill login passwords to your sites... Chrome is not a functional browser.
I would love it if Google offered a real strong browser. But they do not. I will not use Chrome and advise you to avoid it if you want to use it to store long strong passwords for the sites you access.
I'm not sure if the quality of many cameras is high enough for retina authentication*. Someone might also show a picture of your eye in front of the camera and thus gain access. I still find your idea interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
*) Unless Apple comes up with Retina Camera ;)
Just an idea here: why not show a moving target on the screen of the phone that moves in a unique way each time. Then the phone compares the motion of the eye tracking the target as well as the eye details in order to verify: 1. the eye belongs to the user 2. the eye is real because it tracks the target.
I dont know if this is realist... Im just saying, that maybe solutions are possible using the camera in video format to verify real and reactive objects instead of fake images
The best feature of the password is that it's in your head. You carry it around everywhere, and it can never be physically taken from you. This proposed plan just makes cellphones that much more attractive to steal.
The worst passwords are in your head. If you can remember a password in your head, then it simply isnt long and random enough. Passwords in your head can be taken from you through deception, coersion or duress. No one is suggesting that digitally generated and stored passwords should not be protected by something inside your head, its just that using your head alone is far too weak. Most people can only remember up to 3 strong passwords. This results in repeated passwords over multiple sites. Reality is that the weakest password is the one in your head and that is the single password you should use to encrypt the set of strong passwords for actual site logins.
Furthermore, having digital passwords you dont type is strong against keylogging techniques. Since you are not actually typing site login passwords into your keyboard, the real password is never disclosed during logins. So even if the local decryption password is known, the keylogger users will also need physical access to the device storing these passwords to gain access to login to these 3rd party sites.
The WORST feature of the password is that it's in your head. I have 20+ login passwords between work and home, my security is lower because you have to simplify them to remember them. If we can find a way to escape the tyranny of passwords that can generally be cracked by anyone who's determined anyway it can only be progress. Not that I have any faith in any organisation to do it after many failed or barely passable attempts (biometrics, smart cards etc).
Ive seen a lot of websites that do not encrypt passwords. The majority of human generated passwords are weak and based on dictionary words with a number or two and some weak modification like leak. Also, I had the opportunity to compare passwords accross multiple sites and the same username often used the same password. What happens when people are forced to generate their own passwords, is not that they memorize 20+ logins, but rather they remember a maximum of 3 passwords and then reuse these over multiple sites. Forcing people to generate and remember individual site login passwords is weak because its just not possible for anyone to remember 20+ strong random passwords.
This from an idjut country that can't even spell 'METRE' correctly. 1 litre ( liters for US) of water = 1 kilogram of water = 1,000 cubic centimetres of water (so mr fractionator show me the imperial fractions for the same thing), so not so arbitrary huh. Of course the US should stick with imperial, that is the least that can be done to ensure generation after generation of USians suffer through memorising imperial conversion mwahaha ;D.
Poor argument. Do you use "centre" or "center". Do you use "colour" or "color". Then ask yourself which country is holding onto the past just because that is how they were taught to do it.
Words are excatly what we choose for them to be. The english language is a horrible set of special rules. Reduction of these special cases is a positive thing and exactly what the spirit of metric is all about. I support America in the effort to make english a more phonetic language.
Add to this paper measurement, letter being 8,5x11 inches in north america but 15cm x 30 cm in Europe.
Really? At least 90% of the letters I receive are A4, which is 29,7cm x 21cm. I don't know any European paper format that has an aspect ratio of 2.
The ratio is root 2. The reason for this is obvious... rip any paper in half and the two piece will have equal proportions to the original.
29.7 / 21 = 1.414 (root 2)
rip in half => 21 / 14.85 = 1.414 (root 2)
This makes sense. In that a sheet ripped in half will produce two exactly smaller copies of the original. Now explain to me why the US use 8.5 by 11. Maybe it just "feels" right.
All systems of units are arbitrary.
Metric is not arbitrary. The units have relationships to real physical constants. Read about it. I am not sure, but Imperial is likely based on real things too. For example, do you think there is a reason that 1 foot is approximately the size of a large male human foot? And in the UK, you may be measured in 'stones'. Do you think maybe this is a relationship to some stones of a particular size/weight? Furthermore, even in Imperial, units are related, like the BTU being energy needed to increase 1 pound of water by 1 degree farenheit. There are relationships in all units of measure... metric was just well thought out to be logical and precise in these relationships.
No one uses furlongs. Inches, feet, yards, and miles. Crap - there's probably not more than 1 in 1000 Americans who knows what a furlong is. Most will start fishing in their pants, wondering what the "fur" is all about.
That is exactly why metric is superior. Ive never used the decameter... but I know exactly what it is. Ive never heard anyone sight meause in Megameters, but I know exactly how long it is. What is a 'hectogram' I could tell you even though its never been used. Metric answers the question: how do I covert that unused unit of measure into something I know. Imperial does not.
To spell it out for you.. you only have to remember 10 prefix words in metric. And then there are about 6 base units or so to add to these prefixes. Like meter, gram, newton, juole, pascal, watt, and maybe some more if you are a scientist. Once you learn this by age 7, you will be set for life for understanding all obscure units of measure.
I know metric is superior to imperial, because I was taught both in school. Our country was in the process of conversion during my education. Given the choice, all students preferred metric over imperial. Its a fact that metric is easier. Yet it accomplishes the same goal, so it is better.
The weights and measures system you use doesn't make you more advanced or retarded (yes, retarded literally means the opposite as advanced) any more than say Chinese glyphs make them more primitive than using an alphabet. Metric is every bit as arbitrary as imperial, it's just a bit easier to do unit conversions with them.
There are many things that almost everybody does which are harder than other ways (the English language is full of all sorts of inconsistencies and things that just plain don't make sense,) but we just keep doing them because it's what we're used to.
In 1999, Imperial units caused this mars lander to crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure. $125 million + lost
The result of adding coversion calculations results in stupid outcomes.
Making things unneccessarily complex is stupid. Metric is superior to non-decimal unit systems. You know this, because your money is metric. Thats why there are 100 pennies in a dollar and why you call it a "cent". centi being the prefix meaning 1/100 of the base unit. The obvious advantage of metric is that the prefix language is standardized, so I am able to convert between measures of various scale without even knowing what the unit of measure means. I mean that I can convert between MegaJoules and PicoJoules without even knowing what a joule is. That combined with the fact that the metric system is directly divisible into the base unit of our numbering system ... ie 10. To use any other system is to add complexity for no reason. To stick to this system is to reject or remain ignorant of the fact that easier is better.
I sometimes feel that the Americans fear agreeing with the rest of the world. Its like the only thing that defines America is their differences. Well this is a case where a difference doesn't make us "special"... in a positive way. It makes us "special" in the politically correct descriptive way. Or as you said... retarted.
Maybe it's proper that I point out here, that MS has reached that corporate "age" where they aren't going to grow a lot, or very fast, doing the same thing they've done since they were incorporated. It's time to diversify, moving into new fields. There is room for growth based on their old business model, but that is slowing. It won't continue indefinitely.
Right. If you say that Google collects more then Microsoft, you are simply stating that Google has many more users of their service then Microsoft does.
you trust Google over Microsoft?
one of those companies has a business model that relies on gathering as much information about you that it can and selling it to advertisers.
the other one sells software.
Microsoft collects your information. It just doesnt do it as well as Google. One of the main benefits of Google over Microsoft is that they support open standards. If you were a web programmer, then you would understand why google is superior to Microsoft in terms of being "open". As a programmer, you can decide whether to code for Microsoft products or you can code for everyone else including Google. I sure would love it if Microsoft software disappeared tomorrow, because it would cut my work load in half immediately.
This is why I dislike hardware producers also providing the software. I wouldnt purchase a computing device where I cannot install a selection of 3rd party software. Preferably the 3rd party software should be open sourced so it is difficult for anyone to hide vulnerable routines in the code. It is far to easy for manufacturers to reduce functionality or security in order to further their own interests. Examples: you see this in the chrome browser, where google reduces login security in order to further their own google account login management service and apple products where music selection and ownership is channelled through their own offerings and competing offerings are limited or blocked.
Gamblers have been shown to be more likely to continue playing after a loss then after a win. I think it is a bad idea to manipulate someone who may be addicted to something by engaging with them through their addiction. If there is a serious problem here, then it should be dealt with outside the gaming realm. Here is an easy to find link on gaming addiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction. And here is a reason to encourage video game usage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM
All computer languages Ive seen are written in English. I dont usually see an option to download "the French version" of Pascal, although it was obvious named in honor of a French speaker. I often feel sorry for people who do not speak english who want to be programmers. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are programs that have translations for native function names like 'for', 'while', 'and' and 'if'.
If you want to write programs for a foreign audience, then learning to code so that your textual output is easily translated is the best bet. This is actually a very difficult problem, but worth working on. Google has a few pages dedicated to this discussion with helpful tips they have learned to assist you. Some things to consider are: 1. sentences and phrases are not ordered in the same way among languages... so if your code breaks sentences into parts for things like links and formatting, then the entire sentence will need to be structured so the variables are inserted in the proper order and location. 2. Punctuation is not the same and may appear in different locations around the text (this includes periods and commas). So even punctuation needs to be variable based on the language. 3. Numbers are expressed differently in order and punctuation. 4. Default units vary among cultures. 5. providing a simple an logical mechanism for determining a default language and allowing users to select the desired language is a tricky problem. good luck with it. 6. If your program is internet based, there are considerations of how to logically divide your pages between languages for search engine parsing. You can use language prefixes on domain or insert a language code into the url or you can rewrite the URL itself to be translated as wikipedia does. There is no standard.
If you are really looking to increase your value as a programmer by allowing your programs to reach a wider audience, then learning make your programs easily translatable is likely the best bet. Because in the end, no matter how fluent you become in a second language, the best international program you write will be the one that is translated by someone who speaks that foreign language as their primary language and English as a second language. Not by you translating it yourself.
English speakers represent about 1 to 1.5 billion people on this planet. Both Chinese and Spanish exceed this. However, economy probably German, French and Italian are more significant. It all depends on the target market. I wouldnt bother trying to figure it out and instead write programs that are easily translated. Then hire someone to translate all the required text and phrases in your program. Then hire native speakers of that language to test and report language issues.
If your are looking to communicate with foreign entities, then I suggest you learn a language that is most economically likely to benefit you. The obvious choices would be German, French, Spanish, Italian or whatever cultures you expect to interact with. Although I dont think this is entirely neccessary because most large companies will have a means of communicating with English speaking entities.
It feels strange when a company with true IP value sells for half the value of a company with no patents. Compared to the Instagram sale to FB for $1 billion. Instagram has no patents... simply a user base following that could leave at any time. Yet Kodak with a physical brand and history sells for so much less.
Also... as an experienced programmer. I will tell you that most of the time, you simply cut and paste the code into a separate window and then run tests on it with different values. I mean you need to understand the logic too, but often times, the fastest solution is to run simulation and tests to be sure your brain isnt missing some logical comparison. I rarely trust my brain to determine whether code is working as expected anymore. You set up sample cases and expected results and then run the sample through the code and compare results. This adds great efficiency to confirmation and speeds up the process of verifying coding changes. Also, it proves the case where the logic has intentionally been changed as the logical changes will be flagged and then the tests can be modified after to match the new logic.
Therefore, correct understanding of the results doesnt matter as much as understanding what the code does. Although the experienced programmer produced incorrect output, understanding of the code process was quicker. A simple execution of the code will show the results do not match wat Eric expected and then a re-reading of the code will show why.
An experienced programmer will know: looking at code is not enough to verify code results. Our brains are not that fast or accurate
Eric the expert did get it wrong. I think the reason is that Eric expected more complexity then was present. What Eric did is use the output of the first two loop as input to the 3rd. Whereas, the sample simply used the inputs of the first and second routine as inputs to the 3rd. This is exactly what happened in my though process as I followed the novices work. I thought she was writting the incorrect values, until I realized that the inputs to the 3rd were the inputs of the 1st and 2nd. I consider myself an experienced programmer, although Im not sure about the definition. Anyhow, perhaps more experience programmers will expect a program to more often build up results based on the processing of a previous step. When I first saw this sample... my immediate instinct was to assume that each loop block would build on the output from the last. That assumptions was incorrect. And that assumption is apparent in the incorrect results produced by the experienced programmer named Eric in the 2nd video.
...Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability. This is one of the worst aspects of the Linux community...
So, you are saying this is not a problem with other operating systems because the user (no matter how experienced) doesnt even have the ability to try? You're saying that a major flaw with open software is that most users dont know how to take advantage of its openess? ok. I guess it is true that an advantage to having a close source operating system is that we dont have to worry any longer that some users may not understand how to modify its source code.