"The frequency with which average consumers use the same username/password combination across multiple sites is such that such information could lead to accessing other potentially-existing accounts on high-profile social networks."
No, I read it correctly as "Epsilon Data". Which of course is a negligible amount of data (epsilon is arbitrary small), so the question how attackers might use that little data against me surely is interesting.:-)
The banking industry will just devise some other unique key that people will need to provide so that credit checks and such can be run, and then that key will become the center of risk.
Why not adopt a solution which is already technically possible? Just have everyone be given a smart card storing a private key, with the public key being used as that unique key, but the requirement that you prove your identity by signing some document using that private key. That way, the only way to steal your identity would be to get hold of that physical card (and possibly a PIN for it). Just having the public key wouldn't be of any help.
Of course the system would have to be designed so that the private key never leaves the smart card, but the whole signing process happens on that card.
In addition, if a new certificate is used, it could additionally be signed with the previous certificate to signify that it's a valid successor. Then when presented with a new, unknown certificate for a known site, the browser could verify the "chain signature" with the known previous certificate, and thus verify that the site is the same. This would additionally catch the case where someone buys a domain (and thus can legally get a certificate for it), but uses it for a completely different service.
Photosynthesis is one of the oldest processes of life. I'm sure that if it could be improved without adverse effects to the plants, it would have happened through evolution.
For fuel production, I think it would be better to find out how to make our own technical version of photosynthesis, producing directly the fuel we need without wasting some of the energy for keeping an organism alive.
There are objects which are large enough that you can see them, provided they are in a place where you can see them (this place depends on the size of the object). This includes stars, plantes, tennis balls, flees. Then there are objects which are so small that you cannot see them with the naked eye, regardless of where they are. This includes electrons, atoms, molecules, bacteria. The limit of things you can see is somewhere between bacteria and flees. It definitely is much smaller than 1x1x1.5mm.
That's just bad code. The author of the page should at the very least be putting the call to Google Analytics below the footer. Preferably, they'd make it a callback to document.ready().
"The War Of The Worlds", simple as that. My grandfather brought me one of his flight books to show "military logic" and it said "THERE ARE NO UFOS...but if you see one don't fire unless fired upon". Him and his buddies used to LMAO about that one. How do you "not fire unless fired upon" something that doesn't exist?
Maybe they wanted to protect their super-secret airplane inventions on test flights to be shot down by some stupid pilot who thinks he met some extraterrestrials?
I would never say it's impossible, but I don't buy into "there are so many stars in the universe, odds support at least one of them having intelligent life".
Well, we know for sure that at least one of them has a life form which most of its members consider intelligent. The question is whether there's another one.
Except that it's not really little green men. It's large, hairy men. What do you think why Yeti and Bigfoot were only seen occasionally, and never found when searched for? Well, obviously because they were there only a short time, then went back to their flying saucers and left the planet when nobody watched!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The second word is so terrible that no one ever speaks or writes it. Even thinking it may give you a year in a psychiatric clinic.
No, the URL has changed to stupldbank.com ...
"The frequency with which average consumers use the same username/password combination across multiple sites is such that such information could lead to accessing other potentially-existing accounts on high-profile social networks."
Sure, they might manage to get credentials via phishing. This would be far less of a problem if people used a good password scheme for keeping unique passwords on all websites, like I've done for a long time now.
http://lifehacker.com/#!184773/geek-to-live--choose-and-remember-great-passwords
Since you obviously have forgotten your Slashdot password, your scheme cannot work too well. ;-)
No, I read it correctly as "Epsilon Data". Which of course is a negligible amount of data (epsilon is arbitrary small), so the question how attackers might use that little data against me surely is interesting. :-)
Yeah, when looking for a name for your kid, write a poem and use that as the name. And if anyone uses the name without permission, invoke the DMCA.
Why not adopt a solution which is already technically possible? Just have everyone be given a smart card storing a private key, with the public key being used as that unique key, but the requirement that you prove your identity by signing some document using that private key. That way, the only way to steal your identity would be to get hold of that physical card (and possibly a PIN for it). Just having the public key wouldn't be of any help.
Of course the system would have to be designed so that the private key never leaves the smart card, but the whole signing process happens on that card.
In addition, if a new certificate is used, it could additionally be signed with the previous certificate to signify that it's a valid successor. Then when presented with a new, unknown certificate for a known site, the browser could verify the "chain signature" with the known previous certificate, and thus verify that the site is the same. This would additionally catch the case where someone buys a domain (and thus can legally get a certificate for it), but uses it for a completely different service.
Also, IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses. So unless you expect more than one actual name per possible IPv6 address, this should be completely sufficient.
Photosynthesis is one of the oldest processes of life. I'm sure that if it could be improved without adverse effects to the plants, it would have happened through evolution.
For fuel production, I think it would be better to find out how to make our own technical version of photosynthesis, producing directly the fuel we need without wasting some of the energy for keeping an organism alive.
... at any distance.
There are objects which are large enough that you can see them, provided they are in a place where you can see them (this place depends on the size of the object). This includes stars, plantes, tennis balls, flees. Then there are objects which are so small that you cannot see them with the naked eye, regardless of where they are. This includes electrons, atoms, molecules, bacteria. The limit of things you can see is somewhere between bacteria and flees. It definitely is much smaller than 1x1x1.5mm.
However, the authors of the article seem to have very bad eyes, if 1x1x1.5mm is already at the limit of what they can see unaided.
Well, maybe he wasn't referring to caching by the browser, but to caching by some intermediate server (forward caching).
Well, that means all your posts of the last 8 years are about MS. That's clearly pathetic fixation! ;-)
That's just bad code. The author of the page should at the very least be putting the call to Google Analytics below the footer. Preferably, they'd make it a callback to document.ready().
Ideally, they would not put it in at all.
Ads will load twice as fast!
And automatically:
"SPDY also allows the server to communicate with a client without a client request."
Maybe they wanted to protect their super-secret airplane inventions on test flights to be shot down by some stupid pilot who thinks he met some extraterrestrials?
He didn't. The mission was called "*******", to be pronounced "seven stars".
So the anal probes are really attempts to have sex with us? :-)
Ah, that makes a nice test: Ask someone from the military who should know about it. If he refuses to talk about it, it's real. :-)
Well, we know for sure that at least one of them has a life form which most of its members consider intelligent.
The question is whether there's another one.
When they finally found out that the concave hollow earth theory is true, but didn't want to say "inner space" as to not confuse the uninitiated. :-)
Except that it's not really little green men. It's large, hairy men. What do you think why Yeti and Bigfoot were only seen occasionally, and never found when searched for? Well, obviously because they were there only a short time, then went back to their flying saucers and left the planet when nobody watched! :-)
From the Roswell incident, of course! :-)
They tried it. Unfortunately, the camera watching them always destroyed the quantum state. :-)
I'm pretty sure it's neither. He just aimed at +1 Funny.