The high resolution printing is mainly used for text which is not dithered. The dithering argument only makes sense for photo-printing. In reality all the first high DPI laser printers supported neither grayscale nor color, they just use it for sharper line drawing.
It's not accurate because the server didn't even recieve the request. The request was intercepted in transit and blocked by third party.
That is not a requirement of 403
10.4.4 403 Forbidden The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead.
I still think 403 is the best answer.
502 bad gateway is also good, though the idea that the bad gateway is the current one is a reinterpretation of the message, or since internal error are 500, you could also use "500 Internal Server Error", and justify it with that a legal complications is an unexpected condition for the HTTP protocol.
But we already do have the uber-bandwidth connectors, they aren't sci-fi.
They are no were near sci-fi. Going retro to VGA cables (Sub-D I think they are called), they support any resolution at any refresh rate, though you need either short distances or very thick cables to pull it off, but seriously, they exists and it does work, it is was used to be used for these high-res display before everybody started going low-res.
Looking around my office most people sit about 20" from their monitor but hold a smartphone 12" away from their face. With 20:20 vision are humans able to see 326ppi at 20"? I would guess not.
Guess again. Printers use 1200dpi for a reason. While you can't spot the individual pixel at 600dpi we can easily tell 1200dpi looks better, and 300dpi print is so low res any human with normal vision can tell it is crappy printing from several meters away.
Isn't this assuming the attacker knows your password is 5 small + 1 cap? It's more likely that you have an unknown number of capital and lowercase letters.
Yes and no. I was challenging the advise of adding single a symbol (or capital or number) to a password would make it much stronger. As long as it is only a single of each and not a random output of the enhanced alphabet, the resulting password is not going to be that much stronger.
That is correct. I am making the assumption that password checker would check for one capital letter first. Or maybe for no capital letter first and then one.
The assumption is based on the observation that one capital letter is the most common (and what was recommended in the linked article), and that it has fewer combinations than assuming a random number of capitals, so it makes for a good place to start for a brute force password cracker.
The thing is, brute force does not mean you have to check passwords in a random order, you usually check them in the order of what is most common, so following common patterns like adding ONE capital or ONE number, is not going to help you much. Adding one additional lower case letter is usually better.
He doesn't disagree with me. He is wrong. Of course idiot is still a strong term, I only used it because he present poor password advise as if he knew what he was talking about.
Since we don't know what position a capital letter might occupy, I think we can agree that this expands the MAXIMUM search range above 26^6 and below 52^6+1. That's the teaching point the tool is designed for. It is not designed to be an accurate estimator, but more of a shock value tool to get the attention of users. It has some value in that role.
Since we don't know what position a capital letter might occopy, we have to check as total of password-length positions. For a password of 6 letters, that is exactly one of 6 positions it can occupy.
Disregarding capitals to start with all 6 letter passwords will have the following form (replace [a-f] with random letters). abcdef
Adding ONE capital letter to that gives following extra combinations for every existing password combinations: Abcdef aBcdef abCdef abcDef abcdEf abcdeF
Which is why I only multipled with 6. Because adding one capital letter increases the number of password combinations with only password-length. Btw adding two capital letters to a 6 letter password increases the combinations by 15, can you figure out why?
"5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 26^6 * 6 NOT 52 ^ 6" Wow, who told the hacker that it is a 6 char password with 1 upper case and rest lower case?
The requirement that at least one letter is uppercase. In most case that means exactly ONE. A smart brute force would start by assuming only one is upper-case, which means passwords with only one uppercase letter will be broken long before passwords with more than one
The article linked even makes the argument that adding ONE symbol greatly increases the password strength. As I demonstrated, if you add exactly ONE symbol, you do not greatly increase password strength, in fact, it is more or less the same since the symbols people normally use are much more limited than letters.
Adding upper-case letterS or symbolS is a good idea, but one symbol is never going to make a 6 letter password strong.
Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong other than your first line.
5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 52^6. It would be 26^6 if and only if you knew exactly where the upper case letter was, which is an unreasonable assumption. Adding an upper case letter would eliminate a straight lower-case dictionary attack entirely and double the pool of possible characters from 26 to 52. There are 6 places, so 52^6.
Sigh. If you can not do combinatorics do not comment on it.
5 small letters = 26^5 combinations 1 capital letter = 26 combinations Combinations of position of capital letter: 6
This gives 26^6 * 6.. Everything I wrote was correct. Try again idiot.
The man is an idiot. Adding one extra capital, number or symbol to a password does not increase password strength that much. The algorithm assumes that all places in the password can be all characters.
6 random lower case characters = 26 ^ 6 5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 26^6 * 6 NOT 52 ^ 6 4 random lower case characters + one upper case + one number = 26 ^ 5 * 10 * (6 * 5) NOT 62 ^ 6 3 random lower case character + one upper case + one number + one symbol = 26 ^ 4 * 10 * 8 * (6 * 5 * 4) (based on that only 8 symbols are commonly used)
Is it enough to just know the phone number? Or do you have to be in physical possession of that phone so that you can also receive a call/message from Google and use that to access the account? I think it is the later.
Exactly. The post I replied to made the argument that the phone number is a safe password, which is stupid, since phonenumbers are supposed to be used by third persons in the first place. But as an item in your possession it does work a second method of authentication.
That is an _additional_ trick that some troll have used (and plenty of producing patent-litigators as well), but it is not the primary mode of operation, just one of the more offensive ones.
What?! That is the primary purpose of all patent trolls! Why do you think they take companies to court in the first place? To force them to license... Same CSIRO.
So we gave up on it. New Google accounts do not prompt you for a secret QA. Instead we ask for a phone number. The reason is that it's a kind of "second password" that cannot be guessed by random strangers unless you happen to publish it on the web (happens, but rare),
That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Are you aware of something called phonebooks, many of which are online and can be easily googled. Depending on local phone company policies, either only a few or EVERYONE has their phonenumber online. In places without phonebook almost everyone shares it with their friends on facebook.
I hope you just made that shit up, because I really hope google is not that stupid.
They are not helpful. Automatic proof, or automatic proof-verification is a research field, and has been so for decades, and has still YET to come up with something helpful to anyone doing real mathematical proofs. They have only barely reached the ability to help with play-thing problems handed to high school students, and even them the computer generated result (or input), is obtuse and stupid - not helpful in any way.
jesus christ did someone actually use 'exponentially' correctly on the internet
Nope. The energy involved in the crash which determines the damage done increases quadratically with speed. Similarly the safety margin for errors decreases quadratically with speed. So while it is super-linear, it is not anywhere near or related to exponentially. I am sorry; you will have search harder to find someone use 'exponentially' correctly on the internet:(
There is a difference between online passwords and offline password. First of all there are so many weaknesses online that your password is not going to be the weakest link, secondly online services will typically have system that severely slows down online attacks.
Offline attacks will often attack the digest, and not give a shit about guessing passwords.
Contestants on the top, judge on the bottom. Take 3 second and you can guess whether the robots are on the left or right. If you take more than that you are a bot yourself:P
The tivo clause for one. Apple ships DRM and uses EFI. Lock in is part of their ecosystem. It also causes great problems with iPhone and iPad development.
That is irrelevant for a compiler. The GPLv3 clauses would only be a problem if it is shipped as an integral part of a product Apple sells.
Simple proof: GCC has precompiled headers, and is in some ways more modular than Clang, separate precompiler for instance? What clang has is better API for the code analytics where GCC's modular APIs are either too high level (precompiled source), or too low level (intermediate GIMPLE code).
GCC was in blind alleys before. No real reason for them not to survive this one. Another EGC can happen, to pull GCC in future.
GCC is doing just fine and there is plenty of cooperation between clang-developers and GCC-developers. As always, the war only exists in the minds of the fanboys on each side.
Btw, the latest improvement in GCC is to move new development to C++ which will allow for much cleaner and more maintainable code.
Yep, the only way this makes sense if they want to test dangerous or potentially dangerous technologies without humans getting in the way. If it was really just wireless networks and automated appliances, they could just hand out/install the new bleeding edge technology out for free in a volunteer test city.
The problem is that if you remove the rabbit ears, the icon to the television become a lot more ambiguous. There is a lot of things that are rounded rectangles with another rounded rectangle inside of it.
Slashdot Mirror
The high resolution printing is mainly used for text which is not dithered. The dithering argument only makes sense for photo-printing. In reality all the first high DPI laser printers supported neither grayscale nor color, they just use it for sharper line drawing.
That is not a requirement of 403
I still think 403 is the best answer.
502 bad gateway is also good, though the idea that the bad gateway is the current one is a reinterpretation of the message, or since internal error are 500, you could also use "500 Internal Server Error", and justify it with that a legal complications is an unexpected condition for the HTTP protocol.
But seriously 403 is the correct answer.
They are no were near sci-fi. Going retro to VGA cables (Sub-D I think they are called), they support any resolution at any refresh rate, though you need either short distances or very thick cables to pull it off, but seriously, they exists and it does work, it is was used to be used for these high-res display before everybody started going low-res.
Guess again. Printers use 1200dpi for a reason. While you can't spot the individual pixel at 600dpi we can easily tell 1200dpi looks better, and 300dpi print is so low res any human with normal vision can tell it is crappy printing from several meters away.
Yes and no. I was challenging the advise of adding single a symbol (or capital or number) to a password would make it much stronger. As long as it is only a single of each and not a random output of the enhanced alphabet, the resulting password is not going to be that much stronger.
That is correct. I am making the assumption that password checker would check for one capital letter first. Or maybe for no capital letter first and then one.
The assumption is based on the observation that one capital letter is the most common (and what was recommended in the linked article), and that it has fewer combinations than assuming a random number of capitals, so it makes for a good place to start for a brute force password cracker.
The thing is, brute force does not mean you have to check passwords in a random order, you usually check them in the order of what is most common, so following common patterns like adding ONE capital or ONE number, is not going to help you much. Adding one additional lower case letter is usually better.
He doesn't disagree with me. He is wrong. Of course idiot is still a strong term, I only used it because he present poor password advise as if he knew what he was talking about.
Since we don't know what position a capital letter might occopy, we have to check as total of password-length positions. For a password of 6 letters, that is exactly one of 6 positions it can occupy.
Disregarding capitals to start with all 6 letter passwords will have the following form (replace [a-f] with random letters).
abcdef
Adding ONE capital letter to that gives following extra combinations for every existing password combinations:
Abcdef
aBcdef
abCdef
abcDef
abcdEf
abcdeF
Which is why I only multipled with 6. Because adding one capital letter increases the number of password combinations with only password-length. Btw adding two capital letters to a 6 letter password increases the combinations by 15, can you figure out why?
The requirement that at least one letter is uppercase. In most case that means exactly ONE. A smart brute force would start by assuming only one is upper-case, which means passwords with only one uppercase letter will be broken long before passwords with more than one
The article linked even makes the argument that adding ONE symbol greatly increases the password strength. As I demonstrated, if you add exactly ONE symbol, you do not greatly increase password strength, in fact, it is more or less the same since the symbols people normally use are much more limited than letters.
Adding upper-case letterS or symbolS is a good idea, but one symbol is never going to make a 6 letter password strong.
Sigh. If you can not do combinatorics do not comment on it.
5 small letters = 26^5 combinations
1 capital letter = 26 combinations
Combinations of position of capital letter: 6
This gives 26^6 * 6..
Everything I wrote was correct. Try again idiot.
Legit what?
The man is an idiot. Adding one extra capital, number or symbol to a password does not increase password strength that much. The algorithm assumes that all places in the password can be all characters.
6 random lower case characters = 26 ^ 6
5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 26^6 * 6 NOT 52 ^ 6
4 random lower case characters + one upper case + one number = 26 ^ 5 * 10 * (6 * 5) NOT 62 ^ 6
3 random lower case character + one upper case + one number + one symbol = 26 ^ 4 * 10 * 8 * (6 * 5 * 4) (based on that only 8 symbols are commonly used)
Legit my ass.
Exactly. The post I replied to made the argument that the phone number is a safe password, which is stupid, since phonenumbers are supposed to be used by third persons in the first place. But as an item in your possession it does work a second method of authentication.
That is an _additional_ trick that some troll have used (and plenty of producing patent-litigators as well), but it is not the primary mode of operation, just one of the more offensive ones.
What?! That is the primary purpose of all patent trolls! Why do you think they take companies to court in the first place? To force them to license... Same CSIRO.
That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Are you aware of something called phonebooks, many of which are online and can be easily googled. Depending on local phone company policies, either only a few or EVERYONE has their phonenumber online. In places without phonebook almost everyone shares it with their friends on facebook.
I hope you just made that shit up, because I really hope google is not that stupid.
They are not helpful. Automatic proof, or automatic proof-verification is a research field, and has been so for decades, and has still YET to come up with something helpful to anyone doing real mathematical proofs. They have only barely reached the ability to help with play-thing problems handed to high school students, and even them the computer generated result (or input), is obtuse and stupid - not helpful in any way.
What?! Did you just try to turn, living in your moms basement, into idealistic philosophy?
Nope. The energy involved in the crash which determines the damage done increases quadratically with speed. Similarly the safety margin for errors decreases quadratically with speed. So while it is super-linear, it is not anywhere near or related to exponentially. I am sorry; you will have search harder to find someone use 'exponentially' correctly on the internet :(
There is a difference between online passwords and offline password. First of all there are so many weaknesses online that your password is not going to be the weakest link, secondly online services will typically have system that severely slows down online attacks.
Offline attacks will often attack the digest, and not give a shit about guessing passwords.
Contestants on the top, judge on the bottom. Take 3 second and you can guess whether the robots are on the left or right. If you take more than that you are a bot yourself :P
That is irrelevant for a compiler. The GPLv3 clauses would only be a problem if it is shipped as an integral part of a product Apple sells.
*Cough* bullshit. BULLSHIT!
Simple proof: GCC has precompiled headers, and is in some ways more modular than Clang, separate precompiler for instance? What clang has is better API for the code analytics where GCC's modular APIs are either too high level (precompiled source), or too low level (intermediate GIMPLE code).
GCC is doing just fine and there is plenty of cooperation between clang-developers and GCC-developers. As always, the war only exists in the minds of the fanboys on each side.
Btw, the latest improvement in GCC is to move new development to C++ which will allow for much cleaner and more maintainable code.
Yep, the only way this makes sense if they want to test dangerous or potentially dangerous technologies without humans getting in the way. If it was really just wireless networks and automated appliances, they could just hand out/install the new bleeding edge technology out for free in a volunteer test city.
The problem is that if you remove the rabbit ears, the icon to the television become a lot more ambiguous. There is a lot of things that are rounded rectangles with another rounded rectangle inside of it.
RAID protects against hardware malfunctions, but not user malfunctions. Backups protects against both.