That's not paraphrasing, that is misreading. The value of the compromised account was about half a million. There was not half a million USD worth of players looking to buy bitcoin on that particular exchange at that particular time. Not all bitcoins are for sale on MTGOX at any given time. There are other exchanges, and there are people who are not buying or selling their bitcoins. Right now, there are over 6.8 million bitcoins, but there are only about 100,000 up for sale.
Don't send him to jail, we have to pay for that. Instead make him pay back the $36 million plus $1,000 per person or entity affected. Raid his bank account and garnish 100% of his wages forever.
The bible also teach that God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise for eating from the tree of knowledge.
That was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to eating that fruit Adam and Eve had no idea there was such a thing as evil.
Of course, God had commanded them not to eat the fruit, and that they would be punished if they did. They ate the fruit, and they were punished. Kind of like how your mom says you will get hurt if you touch the hot stove, and then you touch it, and get hurt.
Of course you are correct, and the Bible itself mentions wisdom as a thing to be desired in a number of passages. People who believe in God and that God created the world could only please God by trying to learn more about the world. By learning more about the world, you are learning more about the character of God. As such, it is important to study evolution as that is the currently accepted scientific theory which best approximates (at the moment) the way that life came to be what it presently is. Also, those that believe in God should strive to advance our understanding of the world by continuing to study evolution in order to find out if there is not an even better theory that better and more accurately explains how life came to be. If a scientist ever stops believing that there may be a more accurate explanation for a process, then they have become a religious nut.
I guess every student should get 100% for every test, as it's up to each student to decide what they believe in. Like 2+2=5 for some students.
That is not a fair comparison. We decided how to count and add and such, so we can say that yes, 2+2=4. However, science is not something that we decided to dictate as true. It is something that we have to test and study and try to find explanations for why stuff is the way it is. There is no "truth" in science. Just a series of ever-more precise approximations.
We can't even say for sure that evolution is true. There is a lot of evidence of adapting to changes in environment, and we have witnessed natural selection and survival of the fittest, but there are still a lot of questions that need answering.
Of course, biology classes should teach evolution as the currently accepted scientific theory as to how life on Earth came to be what it is today. But I fully expect any scientific theory of study to be open to reviewing alternative theories and not just accept the current belief as gospel.
But here is a question for creationists: Why do we only have one heart? It's a SPoF in the design of us
Why asks creationists and not scientists? The scientists could give you a perfectly plausible answer why one heart is the appropriate number for our body. One heart seems to work perfectly fine for species that weigh 1/1000th of what we do up to ones that weight 10,000 times what we do.
Did you know that muscles in your feet help to pump blood back to your heart?
If cars are transportation, then why is there more than one auto manufacturer, and why do they cost more than $1,000? If a car is just basic transportation, then the most basic vehicle that runs and is safe is all we need, but clearly transportation is only one of a variety of reasons why people buy a car. Just off the top of my head, here are some other factors in why people buy a vehicle:
1. Affordability
2. Cost of operation.
3. Suitability for purpose.
4. Is it "fun" to drive.
5. What other people think of the vehicle.
6. Color.
7. Style.
8. Optional equipment.
I recognize that there are people who view cars as only transportation. But even those that I knew who claimed that still had paid $20,000 or more for a vehicle. Clearly if transportation was the only factor, they would have bought a reliable used car for $1,000.
My reluctance to buy one is based on lack of options. I am looking for a 4 door sports sedan with a manual transmission and a diesel. Something akin to the Audi A6 or BMW 5 series. I saw a post lower that mentioned the A6, but the best I can find is that Audi announced they will be releasing an A6 TI in the next 24 to 30 months. This is the same thing they were saying 24 to 30 months ago. Another option would be a BMW 5 series, which also does not offer diesels in the U.S. Also, they would have to change their styling. BMWs have changed their styling to boring 90's era American styling. By comparison, today's American cars have more "European" styling than European cars. But there is precious little of interest in the way of American diesels either. You have your trucks, and your econoboxes. Zero fun family sized cars.
The whole point of liability insurance is for problems that you yourself are liable for. No one needs this insurance if they don't ever do anything wrong.
No, the whole point of liability insurance is that you pay your premiums and they give you a certificate that says you have it, so people will do business with you. You're not supposed to actually make claims against it.
But seriously, Sony is large enough where they shouldn't even have to have liability insurance. They should just maintain a huge bond. In the long run, that is cheaper than paying an insurance carrier basically the same amount plus operating costs and profit of the insurance company.
What did you do when the Rebox didn't give you the onscreen return confirmed message and you didn't get a return receipt via e-mail?
I called customer support. But they were unable to find it anywhere in their system, nor when they did an inventory of the box. So when in doubt, the customer pays. They charge a lot for a used movie, but at least if I had kept the movie I'd at least still be able to watch it. I had to pay for movies that I didn't get to keep.
You are correct. They are basically selling you a service that you can't possibly consume all of, but they try to dress it up as a good price because you are getting 24 hours of entertainment for only $3. Their packing is specifically designed to squeeze the most money out of you. I wanted Discovery channel, but of course, they package that with stuff like MTV and ESPN that I would never watch. Sure, I got 10 channels a month for $25, but I would only ever watch one, so in fact I am paying $25 a month per channel. Disney had to be purchased separately (along with another dozen unrelated crapfest channels). The one nice thing about cable is that they have been pretty much doubling the internet bandwidth every month and my channel lineup has pretty much doubled in the last 6 years, while the bill has only gone up by 25%. I do believe my current cable channel lineup may truly be worth $30 a month. Too bad I am probably paying triple that or more, hard to figure out where it all falls when you have cable phone and internet all on the same bill.
I've already decreased my cost of consuming lattes to zero, so I am unable to forego any more in order to pay the extra netflix price. Oh wait, I don't have netflix because they were too expensive (before the price hike). I just wanted to comment on what sounded like a particularly ignorant comment from a corporate bigwig. Apparently they think all of their customers are upper middle class soccer moms who have enough money to go buying expensive fru-fru drinks at Starbucks. No, that's just you bigwigs that can afford that kind of thing. The rest of us are struggling to keep up with inflation (even though the government says there isn't any).
What sense does it make for me to pay more to have access to programs I don't watch?
I think the netflix movers and shakers have been spending too much time with the cable movers and shakers.
Strike one was when they charged me for a disc that I did return
They all do that. It is part of their business model. I got charged by Redbox for two discs that were returned. So what if they lose a customer? They made $50 and still have the discs to rent out. There are 6 billion other people to bilk before they run out.
Why not just make the device USB based so they can scan it into their existing mobile and office hardware. Then they can save $600 AND $100 a month in data plan charges.
No, that's still going to be too expensive relative to the additional safety provided to citizens. Just scrap the whole idea.
So let me get this straight. I can't afford an iphone, but taxes are being taken from my meager paycheck in order to give them to police officers and soldiers?
I find this surprising because I know about 20 or so people who regularly pirate videos and they rarely if ever go back and buy the DVD. Why would they when they already have the illegal copy on their media center. What this study says is that most of the people who pirate do not match the profile of the vast majority of people who pirate that I happen to know.
The pirates i know are in the 30 to 50 age range, and make enough money to buy lots of fancy audio video equipment and media centers, but for some reason can't afford to actually buy the movies to watch, Or at least not in the quantity they prefer to consume. So they maintain a media center at work, and whenever one person buy or more commonly rents a movie, they take it to work and rip it, and all the other people take it home on thumb drives to upload to their media servers.
I choose not to partake of this system, because it seems dishonest. Instead, if I can't afford to consume the amount of media that i would like to consume, then I just do without.
Yeah, everybody seems to be playing FPS these days.
Except me. I haven't played one in about 10 years, but I play games regularly. FPS are boring. Kill some people, kill some more.
I hate to agree with an anonymous coward, but...you're right. The games I buy end up being less than $1 an hour of gameplay, I couldn't see paying $10 for a game that I would be done with in two hours. I would be totally pissed.
I have over 100 hours into Final Fantasy X-2 and almost 100 hours into Red Dead Redemption. On both, the story line was completed at 60 or 70 hours and now I am just mopping up to get 100% complete, but they are still fun and getting down to 50 cents an hour of gameplay.
- The attacker has your hash file
- They know the algorithm to generate the hash
- They know your salt method
Well, heck it sounds like the attacker works there. Find them and fire them. Then change your hash algorithm and salt method.
If someone has a good secure password, they should have to change it only under the following conditions.
1. They let someone else know it (Just fire them, it's easier).
2. The system security has gotten compromised. Note that if your system is set up correctly, then no one can "find out" a password regardless. So this one is moot.
Changing passwords CANNOT positively affect security. It can only negatively affect security. If you force people to change passwords, they are going to have to choose new ones that they either can remember (implying less strong password) or will write it down. You can not make people remember an ever increasing series of stronger passwords, only weaker ones, and if you force them to go stronger, then they will have to resort to a means of remembering them, probably via paper.
Changing passwords has ZERO affect on brute force attacks. Remember that statistics say if you rolled a 6 a million times in a row, the next throw, the chances of throwing a 6 have not changed. They are one in 6. In the same way, if they have made a million unsuccessful attempts on password 1, and you change it to password 2, then they have EXACTLY THE SAME chance of hitting it now as if you hadn't changed it. Only difference is now the user is less likely to remember it.
If your system is designed properly, brute force attacks are useless. You should have a delay of at least a second before you accept another password attempt and you should have a lockout period after a few consecutive unsuccessful attempts. Even a one minute lockout can gain you a couple of hundred years of security for a 6 digit password.
How about when they let you type in a password as long as you want when you create it, only to find out when you go to the login page that it only allows 8 characters anyway. Or worse, it will let you type as many as you want, but only accept the first X... and then compare it to the 16 you entered when you signed up and of course fails every time.
Brute force attacks are easily thwarted. All you have to do is only allow a login attempt only once every second. People can't type that fast anyway, especially if it is a long password. Then even a simple lowercase only 6 digit password would take 10 years to crack. Make them have to wait 15 minutes after every three failures and you now have a password that will take 3000 years to crack.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not paraphrasing, that is misreading. The value of the compromised account was about half a million. There was not half a million USD worth of players looking to buy bitcoin on that particular exchange at that particular time. Not all bitcoins are for sale on MTGOX at any given time. There are other exchanges, and there are people who are not buying or selling their bitcoins. Right now, there are over 6.8 million bitcoins, but there are only about 100,000 up for sale.
Don't send him to jail, we have to pay for that. Instead make him pay back the $36 million plus $1,000 per person or entity affected. Raid his bank account and garnish 100% of his wages forever.
The bible also teach that God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise for eating from the tree of knowledge.
That was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to eating that fruit Adam and Eve had no idea there was such a thing as evil.
Of course, God had commanded them not to eat the fruit, and that they would be punished if they did. They ate the fruit, and they were punished. Kind of like how your mom says you will get hurt if you touch the hot stove, and then you touch it, and get hurt.
Of course you are correct, and the Bible itself mentions wisdom as a thing to be desired in a number of passages. People who believe in God and that God created the world could only please God by trying to learn more about the world. By learning more about the world, you are learning more about the character of God. As such, it is important to study evolution as that is the currently accepted scientific theory which best approximates (at the moment) the way that life came to be what it presently is. Also, those that believe in God should strive to advance our understanding of the world by continuing to study evolution in order to find out if there is not an even better theory that better and more accurately explains how life came to be. If a scientist ever stops believing that there may be a more accurate explanation for a process, then they have become a religious nut.
I guess every student should get 100% for every test, as it's up to each student to decide what they believe in. Like 2+2=5 for some students.
That is not a fair comparison. We decided how to count and add and such, so we can say that yes, 2+2=4. However, science is not something that we decided to dictate as true. It is something that we have to test and study and try to find explanations for why stuff is the way it is. There is no "truth" in science. Just a series of ever-more precise approximations.
We can't even say for sure that evolution is true. There is a lot of evidence of adapting to changes in environment, and we have witnessed natural selection and survival of the fittest, but there are still a lot of questions that need answering.
Of course, biology classes should teach evolution as the currently accepted scientific theory as to how life on Earth came to be what it is today. But I fully expect any scientific theory of study to be open to reviewing alternative theories and not just accept the current belief as gospel.
But here is a question for creationists: Why do we only have one heart? It's a SPoF in the design of us
Why asks creationists and not scientists? The scientists could give you a perfectly plausible answer why one heart is the appropriate number for our body. One heart seems to work perfectly fine for species that weigh 1/1000th of what we do up to ones that weight 10,000 times what we do.
Did you know that muscles in your feet help to pump blood back to your heart?
If cars are transportation, then why is there more than one auto manufacturer, and why do they cost more than $1,000? If a car is just basic transportation, then the most basic vehicle that runs and is safe is all we need, but clearly transportation is only one of a variety of reasons why people buy a car. Just off the top of my head, here are some other factors in why people buy a vehicle:
1. Affordability
2. Cost of operation.
3. Suitability for purpose.
4. Is it "fun" to drive.
5. What other people think of the vehicle.
6. Color.
7. Style.
8. Optional equipment.
I recognize that there are people who view cars as only transportation. But even those that I knew who claimed that still had paid $20,000 or more for a vehicle. Clearly if transportation was the only factor, they would have bought a reliable used car for $1,000.
My reluctance to buy one is based on lack of options. I am looking for a 4 door sports sedan with a manual transmission and a diesel. Something akin to the Audi A6 or BMW 5 series. I saw a post lower that mentioned the A6, but the best I can find is that Audi announced they will be releasing an A6 TI in the next 24 to 30 months. This is the same thing they were saying 24 to 30 months ago. Another option would be a BMW 5 series, which also does not offer diesels in the U.S. Also, they would have to change their styling. BMWs have changed their styling to boring 90's era American styling. By comparison, today's American cars have more "European" styling than European cars. But there is precious little of interest in the way of American diesels either. You have your trucks, and your econoboxes. Zero fun family sized cars.
The whole point of liability insurance is for problems that you yourself are liable for. No one needs this insurance if they don't ever do anything wrong.
No, the whole point of liability insurance is that you pay your premiums and they give you a certificate that says you have it, so people will do business with you. You're not supposed to actually make claims against it.
But seriously, Sony is large enough where they shouldn't even have to have liability insurance. They should just maintain a huge bond. In the long run, that is cheaper than paying an insurance carrier basically the same amount plus operating costs and profit of the insurance company.
What did you do when the Rebox didn't give you the onscreen return confirmed message and you didn't get a return receipt via e-mail?
I called customer support. But they were unable to find it anywhere in their system, nor when they did an inventory of the box. So when in doubt, the customer pays. They charge a lot for a used movie, but at least if I had kept the movie I'd at least still be able to watch it. I had to pay for movies that I didn't get to keep.
You are correct. They are basically selling you a service that you can't possibly consume all of, but they try to dress it up as a good price because you are getting 24 hours of entertainment for only $3. Their packing is specifically designed to squeeze the most money out of you. I wanted Discovery channel, but of course, they package that with stuff like MTV and ESPN that I would never watch. Sure, I got 10 channels a month for $25, but I would only ever watch one, so in fact I am paying $25 a month per channel. Disney had to be purchased separately (along with another dozen unrelated crapfest channels). The one nice thing about cable is that they have been pretty much doubling the internet bandwidth every month and my channel lineup has pretty much doubled in the last 6 years, while the bill has only gone up by 25%. I do believe my current cable channel lineup may truly be worth $30 a month. Too bad I am probably paying triple that or more, hard to figure out where it all falls when you have cable phone and internet all on the same bill.
I've already decreased my cost of consuming lattes to zero, so I am unable to forego any more in order to pay the extra netflix price. Oh wait, I don't have netflix because they were too expensive (before the price hike). I just wanted to comment on what sounded like a particularly ignorant comment from a corporate bigwig. Apparently they think all of their customers are upper middle class soccer moms who have enough money to go buying expensive fru-fru drinks at Starbucks. No, that's just you bigwigs that can afford that kind of thing. The rest of us are struggling to keep up with inflation (even though the government says there isn't any).
What sense does it make for me to pay more to have access to programs I don't watch?
I think the netflix movers and shakers have been spending too much time with the cable movers and shakers.
Your boss won't go for that, because if he has his way, he will still be paying you the same in 10 years that he does now.
Strike one was when they charged me for a disc that I did return
They all do that. It is part of their business model. I got charged by Redbox for two discs that were returned. So what if they lose a customer? They made $50 and still have the discs to rent out. There are 6 billion other people to bilk before they run out.
Why not just make the device USB based so they can scan it into their existing mobile and office hardware. Then they can save $600 AND $100 a month in data plan charges.
No, that's still going to be too expensive relative to the additional safety provided to citizens. Just scrap the whole idea.
So let me get this straight. I can't afford an iphone, but taxes are being taken from my meager paycheck in order to give them to police officers and soldiers?
I find this surprising because I know about 20 or so people who regularly pirate videos and they rarely if ever go back and buy the DVD. Why would they when they already have the illegal copy on their media center. What this study says is that most of the people who pirate do not match the profile of the vast majority of people who pirate that I happen to know.
The pirates i know are in the 30 to 50 age range, and make enough money to buy lots of fancy audio video equipment and media centers, but for some reason can't afford to actually buy the movies to watch, Or at least not in the quantity they prefer to consume. So they maintain a media center at work, and whenever one person buy or more commonly rents a movie, they take it to work and rip it, and all the other people take it home on thumb drives to upload to their media servers.
I choose not to partake of this system, because it seems dishonest. Instead, if I can't afford to consume the amount of media that i would like to consume, then I just do without.
Yeah, everybody seems to be playing FPS these days.
Except me. I haven't played one in about 10 years, but I play games regularly. FPS are boring. Kill some people, kill some more.
I hate to agree with an anonymous coward, but...you're right. The games I buy end up being less than $1 an hour of gameplay, I couldn't see paying $10 for a game that I would be done with in two hours. I would be totally pissed.
I have over 100 hours into Final Fantasy X-2 and almost 100 hours into Red Dead Redemption. On both, the story line was completed at 60 or 70 hours and now I am just mopping up to get 100% complete, but they are still fun and getting down to 50 cents an hour of gameplay.
- The attacker has your hash file
- They know the algorithm to generate the hash
- They know your salt method
Well, heck it sounds like the attacker works there. Find them and fire them. Then change your hash algorithm and salt method.
If someone has a good secure password, they should have to change it only under the following conditions.
1. They let someone else know it (Just fire them, it's easier).
2. The system security has gotten compromised. Note that if your system is set up correctly, then no one can "find out" a password regardless. So this one is moot.
Changing passwords CANNOT positively affect security. It can only negatively affect security. If you force people to change passwords, they are going to have to choose new ones that they either can remember (implying less strong password) or will write it down. You can not make people remember an ever increasing series of stronger passwords, only weaker ones, and if you force them to go stronger, then they will have to resort to a means of remembering them, probably via paper.
Changing passwords has ZERO affect on brute force attacks. Remember that statistics say if you rolled a 6 a million times in a row, the next throw, the chances of throwing a 6 have not changed. They are one in 6. In the same way, if they have made a million unsuccessful attempts on password 1, and you change it to password 2, then they have EXACTLY THE SAME chance of hitting it now as if you hadn't changed it. Only difference is now the user is less likely to remember it. If your system is designed properly, brute force attacks are useless. You should have a delay of at least a second before you accept another password attempt and you should have a lockout period after a few consecutive unsuccessful attempts. Even a one minute lockout can gain you a couple of hundred years of security for a 6 digit password.
How about when they let you type in a password as long as you want when you create it, only to find out when you go to the login page that it only allows 8 characters anyway. Or worse, it will let you type as many as you want, but only accept the first X... and then compare it to the 16 you entered when you signed up and of course fails every time.
Judging by some of the emails I get, a lot of people could just use their creative spelling of words and no dictionary attack would ever find them.
Brute force attacks are easily thwarted. All you have to do is only allow a login attempt only once every second. People can't type that fast anyway, especially if it is a long password. Then even a simple lowercase only 6 digit password would take 10 years to crack. Make them have to wait 15 minutes after every three failures and you now have a password that will take 3000 years to crack.