"I think they do this because they don't use hashing and/or they don't use parameterized inputs."
You need an "and" there for the post to make sense. If they either used a hash or a parametrized input, they'd need no restriction on the characters they accept.
What means that those sites use some pretty bad security everywhere, not just on password restrictions.
They only need to do that because they force users to choose bad passwords. If they asked for a nice (even if just 8 chars long) alphanumeric password, they'd just need to insert a small waiting time between tries.
"Remember that most users dont have a password on their home machines simply because they cant be arsed."
What is the point of a password at a home machine anyway? If you must keep people from accessing it while you are around, you are doing something wrong.
On some organizations all that process happen after some manager already sent the software to packaging, so you'll have an update before even the release.
Of course, on other organizations both precedures run in parallel with some requisite changes. Those are the fun ones to work in.
You are conveniently ignoring all the advances of science that gave us the means to do things that nobody even imagined were possible before them.
Do bosson condensates really only appear at extreme cases? That depends, if your bossons are phonons, no, they don't. The same aplies to fermions, if they are electrons... The entire semiconductor and material technologies come from this fact.
Newton laws added a bunch of restriction on what physics alowed, that is true. And the machines from the early Industrial Revolution came from those restrictions. Before him designing a machine needed several lifes of working, after we knew those restrictions people could design several machines at their working lifes.
Also, an incredible discovery is way more likely than you imply. Current physics is simply wrong, we know that. Nobody knows what will came from that discovery, but it is unlikely that no new thing will.
Really, I tought the main support for WIMPs come from the early universe theories. But IANAP.
Anyway, I can't see how MACHOs couldn't explain the bullet cluster observations. Would they hit each other at the colision? That's unlikely, knowing that even stars didn't do that.
It's not a trick question. If people want the Linux module is because they are running Linux.
If they can't run Linux in a usefull way in their environment they will either stop using Linux or change their environment. But remember that those people are running Windows as a host OS, they aren't in there for technical reasons.
It has been available at debian testing for a few years, and now they anounced it is comming to stable. What makes this different from "it is out now"? The fact that it is a kind of beta release?
No, it's Debian Wheezy Gnu Hurd. That is for differentiating it from Debian Weezy Gnu Linux, Debian Weezy Buzybox Linux, debian Weezy Gnu FreeBSD, or any variant of Gnu or the other 3 or 4 userlands available * Linux, Hurd or FreeBSD, Weezy, Squeezy, Sid or Lenny.
Of course, you could also change the "Debian" part, but then you'd have to change a lot more things.
That can and has been done safely efficiently for a few decades now. Yo know, GNU Hurd is not an operating system, it is a userland, that runs on a microkernel operating system. Currently it runs on L4 that is almost 20 years old, it was first conceived to run on Mach that will soon turn 30. Both are now free, altough Mach stayed propretary for a while, setting back Hurd development.
That's a problem on Debian, not your video card... As anoying as it is, I'd have to say, works well on stable. But I bet you had other problems on Debian hurting you because of that card, I've had plenty of bad experiences running proprietary video drivers. It is hard for any distro to keep proprietary software in a good condition.
Anyway, I've already taken that route, and the last GPU I brought was an ATI. The free driver isn't as fast as the other computer that has an nvidia with the proprietary driver (altought the GPUs are comparable), but let me tell you, it is well worth it.
Because proprietary drivers will taint the kernel, and you may lose support because of that. Because one can't fix bugs in a proprietary driver, and no company will fix them fast enough or on old drivers. Because you want to add something to it. Because you want the driver that was compiled toghether with Xorg and your kernel, so anything wrong appears before distribution. Because you want the driver that (again) was compiled toghether with Xorg and the kernel, so that you'll be sure there will be no delay between the compilations and your driver will be fit to the version of the kernel and Xorg you are using.
Well, I've never had any reason out of the above. Other people experience may vary.
Slashdot Mirror
It was strongly suspected, but not known.
If that is the weakest link, you have a pretty strong chain there. Compare with:
Or the more complex:
If the attacker needs to get to you in order to break the chain, it is alwead as strong as it can be.
My bank is more interesting. It uses a 8 number password for read only access, and a 6 number one for account movement.
Only if you doesn't salt it.
Anyway, the GP doesn't have a point. Every aplication has access to the plain text password. If not where would the hash come from?
We just do it wrong because we can't send a card to every potential user out there, and expect him to not lose it.
Why can't the browser just implement a key store, and do token authentication when asked?
Really, why can't we have some form of authentication that doesn't trust the Cloud?
You need an "and" there for the post to make sense. If they either used a hash or a parametrized input, they'd need no restriction on the characters they accept.
What means that those sites use some pretty bad security everywhere, not just on password restrictions.
They only need to do that because they force users to choose bad passwords. If they asked for a nice (even if just 8 chars long) alphanumeric password, they'd just need to insert a small waiting time between tries.
What is the point of a password at a home machine anyway? If you must keep people from accessing it while you are around, you are doing something wrong.
That's because it is not an important release. How was the weather under that rock you've been for the last couple of months?
On some organizations all that process happen after some manager already sent the software to packaging, so you'll have an update before even the release.
Of course, on other organizations both precedures run in parallel with some requisite changes. Those are the fun ones to work in.
Why would one be concerned about extensions if he can't use anything more than (a less functional version of) AdBlock to start with?
The article doesn't say a word about MACHOs or WIMPs. It does say the cluster is an evidence for dark matter, but not for what kind of it.
You are conveniently ignoring all the advances of science that gave us the means to do things that nobody even imagined were possible before them.
Do bosson condensates really only appear at extreme cases? That depends, if your bossons are phonons, no, they don't. The same aplies to fermions, if they are electrons... The entire semiconductor and material technologies come from this fact.
Newton laws added a bunch of restriction on what physics alowed, that is true. And the machines from the early Industrial Revolution came from those restrictions. Before him designing a machine needed several lifes of working, after we knew those restrictions people could design several machines at their working lifes.
Also, an incredible discovery is way more likely than you imply. Current physics is simply wrong, we know that. Nobody knows what will came from that discovery, but it is unlikely that no new thing will.
Really, I tought the main support for WIMPs come from the early universe theories. But IANAP.
Anyway, I can't see how MACHOs couldn't explain the bullet cluster observations. Would they hit each other at the colision? That's unlikely, knowing that even stars didn't do that.
It's not a trick question. If people want the Linux module is because they are running Linux.
If they can't run Linux in a usefull way in their environment they will either stop using Linux or change their environment. But remember that those people are running Windows as a host OS, they aren't in there for technical reasons.
Yes, it does. How Linux not doing stuff people want to do is good again? Should all the people that use the module fully change to Windows instead?
It has been available at debian testing for a few years, and now they anounced it is comming to stable. What makes this different from "it is out now"? The fact that it is a kind of beta release?
No, it's Debian Wheezy Gnu Hurd. That is for differentiating it from Debian Weezy Gnu Linux, Debian Weezy Buzybox Linux, debian Weezy Gnu FreeBSD, or any variant of Gnu or the other 3 or 4 userlands available * Linux, Hurd or FreeBSD, Weezy, Squeezy, Sid or Lenny.
Of course, you could also change the "Debian" part, but then you'd have to change a lot more things.
That can and has been done safely efficiently for a few decades now. Yo know, GNU Hurd is not an operating system, it is a userland, that runs on a microkernel operating system. Currently it runs on L4 that is almost 20 years old, it was first conceived to run on Mach that will soon turn 30. Both are now free, altough Mach stayed propretary for a while, setting back Hurd development.
I'm quite sure that goes against the free software guidelines proposed by Stalman... But anyway, troll as you wish.
Not that disturbing. It will be released by the end of 2012 or beggining of 2013, AKA, way after the world ends...
That's a problem on Debian, not your video card... As anoying as it is, I'd have to say, works well on stable. But I bet you had other problems on Debian hurting you because of that card, I've had plenty of bad experiences running proprietary video drivers. It is hard for any distro to keep proprietary software in a good condition.
Anyway, I've already taken that route, and the last GPU I brought was an ATI. The free driver isn't as fast as the other computer that has an nvidia with the proprietary driver (altought the GPUs are comparable), but let me tell you, it is well worth it.
Somehow, that adage almost never works well at the real world.
Did you get some Greece bounds a couple of years ago?
Because proprietary drivers will taint the kernel, and you may lose support because of that. Because one can't fix bugs in a proprietary driver, and no company will fix them fast enough or on old drivers. Because you want to add something to it. Because you want the driver that was compiled toghether with Xorg and your kernel, so anything wrong appears before distribution. Because you want the driver that (again) was compiled toghether with Xorg and the kernel, so that you'll be sure there will be no delay between the compilations and your driver will be fit to the version of the kernel and Xorg you are using.
Well, I've never had any reason out of the above. Other people experience may vary.