You might not care about this particular problem because it doesn't light your fire, but you do seem to be interested in why it does light the fire of so many other people. Perhaps you could put your sense of intellectual curiosity into finding out what it is about the problem that has so many people interested in it?
I don't mean to double-post, but perhaps this is a more succinct version of my point.
Does "Sony Officially Blames Anonymous For PSN Hack" have only one meaning and that meaning is that Anonymous carried out the attack? Or are there other meanings that are possible? If there is ambiguity, is it fair to say that the headline is a complete fabrication? Is it fair to say that the headline is a complete fabrication if one of the other possible meanings describes what Sony actually said accurately?
"Sony Corp (6758.T) blamed Internet vigilante group Anonymous for indirectly allowing a hacker to gain access to personal data of more than 100 million video game users."
Sony is not saying Anonymous carried out the attack. They are saying if Anonymous had not done what they had said they had done then the access of personal data would not have occurred. They most certainly are actually blaming Anonymous for being the cause to the effect of a successful attack.
Here's a car analogy. I am stopped at a red light and Alice is in the lane next to me. It's a summer day and we have our windows done. Not liking each other, we are bickering while waiting for the light to change. Bob comes from behind and rear-ends me lightly. I then go on record saying that had I not been bickering with Alice I may have noticed Bob in the rear-view mirror and been able to avoid the accident by rolling up a foot. Someone then publishes a headline that reads "praxis blames Alice for accident". Is that headline really 100% false?
It does make them negligent with confidential user information, if indeed they were storing it on unpatched servers with no encryption. Having them speculate on who the attacker was is also not winning them points in my book.
That was kind of my point, one cannot ignore those kinds of accusations and say we have a country that believes in the rule of law. What RightwingNutjob basically said was "how exactly [do] you arrive (sic) your assessment that those words [democracy, freedom, accountability] have no meaning here [US]. (sic) And please hold all incoherent rants about the TSA, Gitmo, and black helicopters to yourself." That's like asking to not use actual evidence to back up one's claim--let's not use what the US actually says and does. Of course, perhaps he or she really was interested in hearing about how the TSA, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and so on do show that we're not quite the freedom and accountability types that we say we are, only not willing to hear incoherent rants. To me though, it read that he or she felt that any mention of Gitmo, for example, would qualify the writer's words as an incoherent rant automatically.
Amazon does their due diligence in storing the numbers though. Payment information is tokenized in a separate service and not accessible on the network. Only one-way "please charge instrument with alias X Y amount of Z currency" requests go to a proxy service.
I'm willing to be saying something like "would you mind sending me in writing that you refuse to cancel my account to the following address (pause)" might work.
Have you tested this so-called power? I find most business have sensible policies like that outlined, but nine times out of ten upper management will still decide the risk is worth the cost.
Credit card fraud is most certainly a crime, or when someone skimmed my card number the FBI wouldn't have gotten involved, the bank wouldn't have willingly and quickly handed over all their evidence and paper trail, and the perpetrators would not have been caught.
Perhaps I didn't understand what he meant by "Besides, one could say that, because of the lack of engineering graduates, there isn't much demand for going into the field, either." Does that mean that because there are fewer graduates, demand for them has gone down? He seems to imply that the lack of engineering graduates (which I saw as a supply in this example), the market's demand for graduates has gone down. In this instance, I thought we were looking at the graduates as the supply to fulfill the market's demand for them.
I see what you mean that you can think of the transaction relatively from either side, but I'm not sure how that applies that that quote.
Now if we could just get the pharmaceutical companies to be more transparent with their pricing structures, especially when it comes to prescription coupons.
One should neither transmit from client to server a planitext password nor a salted and hashed password. It's better to send a nonce to the client and have it hashed with the salted hashed password client-side and send the hashed nonce back for comparison.
I have no idea of what you speak with this online real-time NetHack. Care to supply a link?
For me there are three aspects that are definitive to a roguelike to me: turn-based, permadeath, randomized world offering re-playable challenges. Diablo is not very similar to NetHack, for example, because it lacks the randomized world offering re-playable challenges.
You can build a good gaming system for under $1000 easy. Enough to run the latest games at decent (not best) settings. I spent $650 on my recent quad core 8GB ram machine (a few weeks old) but that was sans video cards. A GTX 460 is $200 so that brings it to $850 (without monitor).
Slashdot Mirror
You might not care about this particular problem because it doesn't light your fire, but you do seem to be interested in why it does light the fire of so many other people. Perhaps you could put your sense of intellectual curiosity into finding out what it is about the problem that has so many people interested in it?
Are algorithms and code differentiable?
I don't mean to double-post, but perhaps this is a more succinct version of my point.
Does "Sony Officially Blames Anonymous For PSN Hack" have only one meaning and that meaning is that Anonymous carried out the attack? Or are there other meanings that are possible? If there is ambiguity, is it fair to say that the headline is a complete fabrication? Is it fair to say that the headline is a complete fabrication if one of the other possible meanings describes what Sony actually said accurately?
Not entirely.
"Sony Corp (6758.T) blamed Internet vigilante group Anonymous for indirectly allowing a hacker to gain access to personal data of more than 100 million video game users."
Sony is not saying Anonymous carried out the attack. They are saying if Anonymous had not done what they had said they had done then the access of personal data would not have occurred. They most certainly are actually blaming Anonymous for being the cause to the effect of a successful attack.
Here's a car analogy. I am stopped at a red light and Alice is in the lane next to me. It's a summer day and we have our windows done. Not liking each other, we are bickering while waiting for the light to change. Bob comes from behind and rear-ends me lightly. I then go on record saying that had I not been bickering with Alice I may have noticed Bob in the rear-view mirror and been able to avoid the accident by rolling up a foot. Someone then publishes a headline that reads "praxis blames Alice for accident". Is that headline really 100% false?
It does make them negligent with confidential user information, if indeed they were storing it on unpatched servers with no encryption. Having them speculate on who the attacker was is also not winning them points in my book.
An interesting read, thanks.
That was kind of my point, one cannot ignore those kinds of accusations and say we have a country that believes in the rule of law. What RightwingNutjob basically said was "how exactly [do] you arrive (sic) your assessment that those words [democracy, freedom, accountability] have no meaning here [US]. (sic) And please hold all incoherent rants about the TSA, Gitmo, and black helicopters to yourself." That's like asking to not use actual evidence to back up one's claim--let's not use what the US actually says and does. Of course, perhaps he or she really was interested in hearing about how the TSA, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and so on do show that we're not quite the freedom and accountability types that we say we are, only not willing to hear incoherent rants. To me though, it read that he or she felt that any mention of Gitmo, for example, would qualify the writer's words as an incoherent rant automatically.
The NSA has told the world to stop using product-of-prime-numbers based asymmetric encryption.
You wouldn't perhaps have a source for this, would you?
I think you got your Koreas confused.
Excellent. Now if only more business would take a similar stance.
Amazon does their due diligence in storing the numbers though. Payment information is tokenized in a separate service and not accessible on the network. Only one-way "please charge instrument with alias X Y amount of Z currency" requests go to a proxy service.
Or just ask the customer to re-enter their payment information. Especially since after 12 years it is likely to be different anyhow.
I'm willing to be saying something like "would you mind sending me in writing that you refuse to cancel my account to the following address (pause)" might work.
Not sure what definition of preach you subscribe to, but he explained his personal reasons for his personal boycott. He wasn't preachy about it.
Have you tested this so-called power? I find most business have sensible policies like that outlined, but nine times out of ten upper management will still decide the risk is worth the cost.
Yes, Opera did it first but there is a difference. The encryption key Firefox uses is not stored on the central server and is client-side only.
I imagine that if this country devolved into such a society I'd be living in one more civilised.
Credit card fraud is most certainly a crime, or when someone skimmed my card number the FBI wouldn't have gotten involved, the bank wouldn't have willingly and quickly handed over all their evidence and paper trail, and the perpetrators would not have been caught.
We don't know because we don't have reliable access to their intended purpose.
Perhaps I didn't understand what he meant by "Besides, one could say that, because of the lack of engineering graduates, there isn't much demand for going into the field, either." Does that mean that because there are fewer graduates, demand for them has gone down? He seems to imply that the lack of engineering graduates (which I saw as a supply in this example), the market's demand for graduates has gone down. In this instance, I thought we were looking at the graduates as the supply to fulfill the market's demand for them.
I see what you mean that you can think of the transaction relatively from either side, but I'm not sure how that applies that that quote.
Now if we could just get the pharmaceutical companies to be more transparent with their pricing structures, especially when it comes to prescription coupons.
One should neither transmit from client to server a planitext password nor a salted and hashed password. It's better to send a nonce to the client and have it hashed with the salted hashed password client-side and send the hashed nonce back for comparison.
You do realize that graduates are the supply, not the demand?
I have no idea of what you speak with this online real-time NetHack. Care to supply a link?
For me there are three aspects that are definitive to a roguelike to me: turn-based, permadeath, randomized world offering re-playable challenges. Diablo is not very similar to NetHack, for example, because it lacks the randomized world offering re-playable challenges.
You can build a good gaming system for under $1000 easy. Enough to run the latest games at decent (not best) settings. I spent $650 on my recent quad core 8GB ram machine (a few weeks old) but that was sans video cards. A GTX 460 is $200 so that brings it to $850 (without monitor).