So you are saying that a democracy is a fancy cloak-and-dagger form of a totalitarian regime where we slowly strip your rights away and build up a police state?
Yeah, democracy doesn't hold up well to hostile forces. People crave security, and they will vote for it.
Perhaps I'm confused as to what we are protecting. I presume that the discussion centers around someone stealing your hashed passwords list and your salt.
The goal is to keep the thief from discovering the passwords. One person suggested using a slower hash algorithm to slow down brute force attacks, and I countered by saying that you could just loop over an MD5 or similar to make it take as long as you wish.
How does knowing the second-to-the-last hash help the thief?
Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.
You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?
Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?
I'm not really sure that a "kill switch" is a good idea - I mean, if Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug for the day, they probably would. Hell, if he asked the military to pull the plug, they probably would. So what additional authority is even needed?
But anyway, preaching against security in the face of terrorism isn't going to win the day.
Forgive me for being dense, but the advantage of bcrypt is that it's slower? If that is the case, why not just run your MD5 or whatever hashes in a loop 50 or 60 times to get the same performance hit?
Sorry, my reason for putting "statistics" in quotes was not to doubt your sources, but to poke fun at the AC who criticized your statistical aptitude when he was talking about basic math.:)
Why do you think it is that ridiculous that someone might think the US would send an enemy to Guantanamo?
Simply because there is no precedent for someone in Mr. Assange's position to end up there. Has anyone been extradited by treaty away from a civil judicial system in a democratic country? Mr. Assange may or may not be an enemy of the US, but he is no "enemy combatant".
How hard would it to get satellites seated above and below an object?
Very. You'd have to fight gravity with propulsion or they would fall into the object. A satellite has to orbit or it will fall into the planet.
You could get fancy and try to exploit another object's gravity and then occupy the Lagrangian points, but I can't think of a real-world example of where this would work at the poles.
If you used an extremely elliptical orbit, you could at least have a line-of-sight to a pole for a long period of time. Use two satellites and you could cover a pole full-time using an elliptical orbit.
LOL, you are arguing semantics. The iPad is in a new class of products - and whatever you guys call that class of products, that is what we are talking about here:)
I don't think Al Gore's work on Global Warming deserves derision for being a stretch to tie to peace. If you take AGW as a given, then the connection to peace is pretty straightforward. Doing nothing about AGW = rising sea levels. Rising sea levels = hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people. Hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people = war.
There are plenty of real-life, real-world, non-hypothetical wars and conflicts that deserve the committee's attention. Giving to a guy who is not in any way associated with peace efforts of any kind is a stretch. Not as bad as giving the prize to a terrorist, but definitely a bigger stretch than giving to a guy (Obama) who is at least directly connected to the war/peace-making process.
To address your thesis more directly, what if I propose an alternate future than yours, where the threat of rising sea levels actually gives people a common plight and goal, and therefore reduces war from current levels? What if it changes the climate drastically and makes the Sahara fertile again? Yes, I agree that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is sound, but I also realize that these models cannot possibly predict the effects of a higher temperature to the point which you can predict future events - let alone the balance of war and peace.
All there in plain English and not hidden behind 100s of pages of EULA. RTFA.
That's great, except that IE is not the culprit - it is the Bing Toolbar. Having never installed that little gem, I don't really know if it has the same option. Googling around seems to indicate it does. I'd like to point out that MS has a habit of checking this by default, and most users don't install it - the OEM does.
So perhaps some of my disappointment should lie with the vendors... while true that MS pays them to install what amounts to spyware, they didn't have to actually do it.
A single company can't track everything you do on the internet. Sure, google can track you every time you view a Google ad, and Google ads are all over the place - but I think most people who care understand this... you visit a site, they can track you.
MS has taken it to the next level - they can track you no matter what site you visit. You aren't asking their server for anything, and yet they know you made a request. Sure, you clicked "Yes" on some bullshit text when you installed the Bing Toolbar... but that doesn't excuse this kind of spyware.
Maybe... but cookies are pretty common and only work on Google's sites and sites who partner with Google. This Bing Toolbar is taking it to the next level.
This is a browser toolbar which claims to help you do things Bingish, and meanwhile reports back to MS what you are doing along with, it appears, results of your surfing.
There are some who hate tracking cookies, but I think most of us kind of accept that someone can and will track you when you load their content - even if it is ads. It's somewhat more unsettling to think that someone is watching EVERYTHING you do, no matter what site you visit.
It doesn't take away from your comment at all, but I don't think D-VHS was killed by DVD... it had numerous other issues. For one, it was expensive (especially the media). Two, it had a horrid copyright scheme that limited it too much. Third, it's inputs and outputs were non-nonsensical... no digital output?
In short, the media cartel decided to kill it because it could record, and at the time the DVD could not.
And why is that cheating? Sounds like simple observance in an effort to get improve results.
I don't think that it is cheating.
It is slimy, though. Intercepting your customers interactions with a 3rd party for your own benefit is slimy, even if they do click on an "agreement" that they don't read or understand.
If you want this kind of information, you should pay people for it or make it specifically opt-in. Neilson would be the closest example from the pre-dot-com world.
What things are we eating and drinking that, 100 years from now, our descendants will wonder how we didn't all just keel over dead?
Beyond obvious things like tobacco, when I lived in NYC I was always struck by the rich inhabitants coming out of the Whole Foods with their organic produce and stepping into the exhaust fumes of a million cars and buses. Yeah, it'll be the Apples that kill you...
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that a democracy is a fancy cloak-and-dagger form of a totalitarian regime where we slowly strip your rights away and build up a police state?
Yeah, democracy doesn't hold up well to hostile forces. People crave security, and they will vote for it.
Perhaps I'm confused as to what we are protecting. I presume that the discussion centers around someone stealing your hashed passwords list and your salt.
The goal is to keep the thief from discovering the passwords. One person suggested using a slower hash algorithm to slow down brute force attacks, and I countered by saying that you could just loop over an MD5 or similar to make it take as long as you wish.
How does knowing the second-to-the-last hash help the thief?
the terrorists have won
Which terrorist?
McVeigh? He didn't win - he thought he could spark a revolt.
Bin Laden? He hasn't won - he wanted us out of the Middle East, only to INCREASE our involvement.
So which terrorist won?
(Sorry for the combative tone... It's just that I see this phrase a lot on here and for some reason it set me off...)
Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.
You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?
Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?
I'm not really sure that a "kill switch" is a good idea - I mean, if Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug for the day, they probably would. Hell, if he asked the military to pull the plug, they probably would. So what additional authority is even needed?
But anyway, preaching against security in the face of terrorism isn't going to win the day.
Use bcrypt
Forgive me for being dense, but the advantage of bcrypt is that it's slower? If that is the case, why not just run your MD5 or whatever hashes in a loop 50 or 60 times to get the same performance hit?
Sorry, my reason for putting "statistics" in quotes was not to doubt your sources, but to poke fun at the AC who criticized your statistical aptitude when he was talking about basic math. :)
Why do you think it is that ridiculous that someone might think the US would send an enemy to Guantanamo?
Simply because there is no precedent for someone in Mr. Assange's position to end up there. Has anyone been extradited by treaty away from a civil judicial system in a democratic country? Mr. Assange may or may not be an enemy of the US, but he is no "enemy combatant".
or even Guantanamo Bay
I think this line alone is a commentary on both the hyperbole used by his lawyers and the sad state of the US reputation in Europe.
How hard would it to get satellites seated above and below an object?
Very. You'd have to fight gravity with propulsion or they would fall into the object. A satellite has to orbit or it will fall into the planet.
You could get fancy and try to exploit another object's gravity and then occupy the Lagrangian points, but I can't think of a real-world example of where this would work at the poles.
If you used an extremely elliptical orbit, you could at least have a line-of-sight to a pole for a long period of time. Use two satellites and you could cover a pole full-time using an elliptical orbit.
returns_per_shipped / returns_per_sold = 2% / 16% = 1/8
since returns is a constant it cancels and you get shipped/sold = 1/8.
since they shipped 2 million, sold = 2 million / 8 = 0.25 million
I don't know where he got his numbers, but his math is solid. We have no evidence of his "statistics".
LOL, you are arguing semantics. The iPad is in a new class of products - and whatever you guys call that class of products, that is what we are talking about here :)
I don't think Al Gore's work on Global Warming deserves derision for being a stretch to tie to peace. If you take AGW as a given, then the connection to peace is pretty straightforward. Doing nothing about AGW = rising sea levels. Rising sea levels = hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people. Hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people = war.
There are plenty of real-life, real-world, non-hypothetical wars and conflicts that deserve the committee's attention. Giving to a guy who is not in any way associated with peace efforts of any kind is a stretch. Not as bad as giving the prize to a terrorist, but definitely a bigger stretch than giving to a guy (Obama) who is at least directly connected to the war/peace-making process.
To address your thesis more directly, what if I propose an alternate future than yours, where the threat of rising sea levels actually gives people a common plight and goal, and therefore reduces war from current levels? What if it changes the climate drastically and makes the Sahara fertile again? Yes, I agree that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is sound, but I also realize that these models cannot possibly predict the effects of a higher temperature to the point which you can predict future events - let alone the balance of war and peace.
was lost on the populace.
What populous? It was reported in almost every news story about the event that I heard.
and that person is Barack Obama.
At least he hadn't done any harm... Yassir Arafat won because he stopped being a terrorist.
The prize has been a joke for a while now - the Obama "wish upon a star" prize was mild in comparison.
Worse than Obama:
All there in plain English and not hidden behind 100s of pages of EULA. RTFA.
That's great, except that IE is not the culprit - it is the Bing Toolbar. Having never installed that little gem, I don't really know if it has the same option. Googling around seems to indicate it does. I'd like to point out that MS has a habit of checking this by default, and most users don't install it - the OEM does.
So perhaps some of my disappointment should lie with the vendors... while true that MS pays them to install what amounts to spyware, they didn't have to actually do it.
If you think this is shady, don't open your eyes too much or you're going to feel nauseated all day long.
Until Microsoft did this, we called it "spyware". Maybe the standard has been changed, but I still find spyware to be slimy.
UHHH... Internet advertising??
A single company can't track everything you do on the internet. Sure, google can track you every time you view a Google ad, and Google ads are all over the place - but I think most people who care understand this... you visit a site, they can track you.
MS has taken it to the next level - they can track you no matter what site you visit. You aren't asking their server for anything, and yet they know you made a request. Sure, you clicked "Yes" on some bullshit text when you installed the Bing Toolbar... but that doesn't excuse this kind of spyware.
Maybe... but cookies are pretty common and only work on Google's sites and sites who partner with Google. This Bing Toolbar is taking it to the next level.
This is a browser toolbar which claims to help you do things Bingish, and meanwhile reports back to MS what you are doing along with, it appears, results of your surfing.
There are some who hate tracking cookies, but I think most of us kind of accept that someone can and will track you when you load their content - even if it is ads. It's somewhat more unsettling to think that someone is watching EVERYTHING you do, no matter what site you visit.
In my opinion, they have crossed a line.
D-VHS - digital home movie format killed by DVD
It doesn't take away from your comment at all, but I don't think D-VHS was killed by DVD... it had numerous other issues. For one, it was expensive (especially the media). Two, it had a horrid copyright scheme that limited it too much. Third, it's inputs and outputs were non-nonsensical... no digital output?
In short, the media cartel decided to kill it because it could record, and at the time the DVD could not.
And why is that cheating? Sounds like simple observance in an effort to get improve results.
I don't think that it is cheating.
It is slimy, though. Intercepting your customers interactions with a 3rd party for your own benefit is slimy, even if they do click on an "agreement" that they don't read or understand.
If you want this kind of information, you should pay people for it or make it specifically opt-in. Neilson would be the closest example from the pre-dot-com world.
What things are we eating and drinking that, 100 years from now, our descendants will wonder how we didn't all just keel over dead?
Beyond obvious things like tobacco, when I lived in NYC I was always struck by the rich inhabitants coming out of the Whole Foods with their organic produce and stepping into the exhaust fumes of a million cars and buses. Yeah, it'll be the Apples that kill you...
People like round numbers. Go with it or die frustrated.
No wonder the US is rapidly falling behind the rest of the world.
Our colleges are still quite highly regarded.
Corporations monetize.
Um, didn't you just say that people are doing everything credited to the corporation?
I wrote them an email about this, too... highly annoying - probably going to write a Greasemonkey script :)