Self-signed certs are just as secure as any other, they're just not much good for verifying the identity of the device you're connecting to unless they're your devices (or those of someone you know and trust); though given the laughable standards of proof required by most CAs before issuing a certificate for a given hostname (and yes, sometimes they *are* just hostnames that they're issuing for, for some stupid reason) it's probably not that big a problem even without the recent CA compromises.
However, given the perfectly valid observation that people on Facebook are much, much less selective about who they "friend" than in real life, the results will inevitably be skewed as a result.
Additionally, Facebook has ~800 million accounts of which an unknown number are inactive, fake, duplicate or for some shitty new product, which is less than 12% of the global population.
i.e. Whilst interesting data, it would be stupid to try and claim that it can be used to infer anything about peoples' general relationships outside of Facebook.
On top of that, as someone living in the UK, I'm not "allowed" to watch any of the extended interviews from TDS because the show airs a "Global Edition" here (which is basically a clip show) once a week on a cable TV network I don't have.
Of course it's trivial to get around the "blocking", but that's besides the point. As a result I just download the episodes from the internets after they air and catch up with additional material when I get the time.
As Cory Doctorow wrote today in the Guardian, if you don't provide people with a timely, straightforward, legitimate method to access your products, they'll find their own way to get hold of it and you won't get any money out of it.
That's the kind of attitude that got us lumbered with IE6 for years. There's nothing wrong with progress for the sake of progress; it might end up being more useful than you expected.
In the UK a lot of doctors now have pre-printed notes that they can sign and give to patients that basically say: "Your illness is not bacterial and therefore prescribing antibiotics is pointless, if you don't believe me take this to another doctor and ask them"
The problem is that some GPs would still rather hand out the antibiotics than have the argument with the patient.
Not really. The EU is slamming the US for proposing a law that includes censorship of other countries by way of a unilateral decision that "if we can access it from the US and it's technically possible to shut it down, we're allowed to" and the conditions under which SOPA would "allow" this are so vague as to be applicable to just about any site that they want it to.
The EU directive in question permits member states to block access to sites containing child pornography for their own citizens if they so choose.
I'm not saying that the EU is inherently right in what this directive permits or forbids, but to say that the two things are comparable is seriously misstating the situation.
I believe you're referring to section 47, which as you point out is entirely optional for member states and says things such as:
Mechanisms may also be put in place to block access from the Union's territory to internet pages identified as containing or disseminating child pornography. The measures undertaken by Member States in accordance with this Directive in order to remove or, where appropriate, block websites containing child pornography could be based on various types of public action, such as legislative, non-legislative, judicial or other.
Emphasis mine.
Whichever basis for action or method is chosen, Member States should ensure that it provides an adequate level of legal certainty and predictability to users and service providers.
Any such developments must take account of the rights of the end users and comply with existing legal and judicial procedures and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
It's not quite the same thing is what SOPA is proposing to do now, is it.
The difference being that when Star Trek was released, the Trek franchise was pretty much dead in the water, whereas Doctor Who is currently pretty damn successful; it's either going to have to be canon (and thus a commercial failure) or non-canon and thus not really Doctor Who.
Ugh, sorry, my math is way off, you need to add 3 letters to get higher complexity than adding mixed-case + numbers but it's still generally easier for people to remember 3 extra letters than a random combination of case and numbers.
What I meant was that if your password is "password" (i.e. 8 character lowercase) then it's one of ~208 million possibles. Making it "Pa55w0rd" (mixed case + numbers) ups that to ~218 billion, whereas adding just one character and making it "passwordd" ups it to ~5 trillion and is arguably much easier to remember.
General rules are: Mixed case/numbers/symbols all make them hard to crack but not as much as making them longer. Cracking simple encrypted passwords will not help you crack any more complex ones unless Valve have done something horribly wrong in terms of encrypting them.
And doubtless it'll be just as effective as BT's blocking has been...
Though I suspect that it's less the awesome skill of the people circumventing it and more that BT have almost certainly found the cheapest way to minimally comply with the court order making it trivial to bypass and the other ISPs will probably do the same.
Frozen Synapse made over $1 million during its "donation" to the Humble Bundle, so I don't really think you can call it a failure. Sure, it's no Minecraft, but that's an outlier like WoW and it's stupid to compare other games to it.
I've been thinking about it and the last "true" FPS I played through and really enjoyed probably was CoD4.
Sure there have been other "FPS" games like Portal 2, Deus Ex, Mirror's Edge, Left 4 Dead, TF2, but all of those have something that take them a step away from just being an FPS and mean that even if they are relatively short it doesn't matter so much because they're so cleverly crafted. None of the FPS released in recent years have really interested me, though the prevalence of shitty 3rd Person Action games (because consoles struggle to do decent FPS controls) has reduced their number somewhat.
I bought BF3 but I have no interest in the "CoD-Lite" single player campaign; I might run through it if I'm bored at some point, but I got it for the multiplayer and so far that's been excellent. Honestly, I would have preferred it if they'd shipped it without a single player component rather than half-ass something just to try and compete with MW3 even though there's a negligible audience crossover.
Yes, well, given that 90% of the "User" scores on Metacritic are by accounts whose only previous rating has been a 10 for Battlefield 3, I wouldn't read too much into them...
Re:How did you manged to not compare it to BF3?
on
Modern Warfare 3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well that's mostly EA's fault for doing everything they possibly can to compare BF3 to CoD and seemingly forcing DICE to shoehorn a poor CoD copy into the game as its single player.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-signed certs are just as secure as any other, they're just not much good for verifying the identity of the device you're connecting to unless they're your devices (or those of someone you know and trust); though given the laughable standards of proof required by most CAs before issuing a certificate for a given hostname (and yes, sometimes they *are* just hostnames that they're issuing for, for some stupid reason) it's probably not that big a problem even without the recent CA compromises.
Everything is a war these days, every new product an [other product]-killer; people don't disagree with someone, they "slam" them or "destroy" them.
Let's face it, if it's not totally over the top and blown out of all proportion, very few sections of the media will care enough to publish it.
However, given the perfectly valid observation that people on Facebook are much, much less selective about who they "friend" than in real life, the results will inevitably be skewed as a result.
Additionally, Facebook has ~800 million accounts of which an unknown number are inactive, fake, duplicate or for some shitty new product, which is less than 12% of the global population.
i.e. Whilst interesting data, it would be stupid to try and claim that it can be used to infer anything about peoples' general relationships outside of Facebook.
On top of that, as someone living in the UK, I'm not "allowed" to watch any of the extended interviews from TDS because the show airs a "Global Edition" here (which is basically a clip show) once a week on a cable TV network I don't have.
Of course it's trivial to get around the "blocking", but that's besides the point. As a result I just download the episodes from the internets after they air and catch up with additional material when I get the time.
As Cory Doctorow wrote today in the Guardian, if you don't provide people with a timely, straightforward, legitimate method to access your products, they'll find their own way to get hold of it and you won't get any money out of it.
You have weird Christmas stockings.
That's the kind of attitude that got us lumbered with IE6 for years. There's nothing wrong with progress for the sake of progress; it might end up being more useful than you expected.
In the UK a lot of doctors now have pre-printed notes that they can sign and give to patients that basically say: "Your illness is not bacterial and therefore prescribing antibiotics is pointless, if you don't believe me take this to another doctor and ask them"
The problem is that some GPs would still rather hand out the antibiotics than have the argument with the patient.
Per head, compared to Americans, very little.
Not really. The EU is slamming the US for proposing a law that includes censorship of other countries by way of a unilateral decision that "if we can access it from the US and it's technically possible to shut it down, we're allowed to" and the conditions under which SOPA would "allow" this are so vague as to be applicable to just about any site that they want it to.
The EU directive in question permits member states to block access to sites containing child pornography for their own citizens if they so choose.
I'm not saying that the EU is inherently right in what this directive permits or forbids, but to say that the two things are comparable is seriously misstating the situation.
I believe you're referring to section 47, which as you point out is entirely optional for member states and says things such as:
Mechanisms may also be put in place to block access from the Union's territory to internet pages identified as containing or disseminating child pornography. The measures undertaken by Member States in accordance with this Directive in order to remove or, where appropriate, block websites containing child pornography could be based on various types of public action, such as legislative, non-legislative, judicial or other.
Emphasis mine.
Whichever basis for action or method is chosen, Member States should ensure that it provides an adequate level of legal certainty and predictability to users and service providers.
Any such developments must take account of the rights of the end users and comply with existing legal and judicial procedures and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
It's not quite the same thing is what SOPA is proposing to do now, is it.
the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'
He's quite right. It has fuck all to do with SOPA and its associated discussions, but he's right.
Not to mention the number of turtles he's fucked up over the years. The man is a monster!
On the upside, if he did get elected president it would be a huge boon for small torture business owners.
The difference being that when Star Trek was released, the Trek franchise was pretty much dead in the water, whereas Doctor Who is currently pretty damn successful; it's either going to have to be canon (and thus a commercial failure) or non-canon and thus not really Doctor Who.
Considering that the last couple of Bethesda games have required Games For Windows Live, Steam is a positively fantastic change.
Ugh, sorry, my math is way off, you need to add 3 letters to get higher complexity than adding mixed-case + numbers but it's still generally easier for people to remember 3 extra letters than a random combination of case and numbers.
Sorry, poorly phrased.
What I meant was that if your password is "password" (i.e. 8 character lowercase) then it's one of ~208 million possibles. Making it "Pa55w0rd" (mixed case + numbers) ups that to ~218 billion, whereas adding just one character and making it "passwordd" ups it to ~5 trillion and is arguably much easier to remember.
Until we have real information about how they were hit, it's difficult to make any assumptions about how badly Valve may have screwed up.
General rules are: Mixed case/numbers/symbols all make them hard to crack but not as much as making them longer.
Cracking simple encrypted passwords will not help you crack any more complex ones unless Valve have done something horribly wrong in terms of encrypting them.
As opposed to Xbox Live? GFWL? The Rockstar Social Club? Origin? Any MMO ever? Any website you've ever purchased anything from? etc.
Let's face it, there's no shortage of places that have some, part or all of your personal information these days; Steam is just one of many.
And doubtless it'll be just as effective as BT's blocking has been...
Though I suspect that it's less the awesome skill of the people circumventing it and more that BT have almost certainly found the cheapest way to minimally comply with the court order making it trivial to bypass and the other ISPs will probably do the same.
Frozen Synapse made over $1 million during its "donation" to the Humble Bundle, so I don't really think you can call it a failure. Sure, it's no Minecraft, but that's an outlier like WoW and it's stupid to compare other games to it.
I've been thinking about it and the last "true" FPS I played through and really enjoyed probably was CoD4.
Sure there have been other "FPS" games like Portal 2, Deus Ex, Mirror's Edge, Left 4 Dead, TF2, but all of those have something that take them a step away from just being an FPS and mean that even if they are relatively short it doesn't matter so much because they're so cleverly crafted. None of the FPS released in recent years have really interested me, though the prevalence of shitty 3rd Person Action games (because consoles struggle to do decent FPS controls) has reduced their number somewhat.
I bought BF3 but I have no interest in the "CoD-Lite" single player campaign; I might run through it if I'm bored at some point, but I got it for the multiplayer and so far that's been excellent. Honestly, I would have preferred it if they'd shipped it without a single player component rather than half-ass something just to try and compete with MW3 even though there's a negligible audience crossover.
Yes, well, given that 90% of the "User" scores on Metacritic are by accounts whose only previous rating has been a 10 for Battlefield 3, I wouldn't read too much into them...
Well that's mostly EA's fault for doing everything they possibly can to compare BF3 to CoD and seemingly forcing DICE to shoehorn a poor CoD copy into the game as its single player.
That said, I agree with you.