to which megabloks are you referring? There's the "first builders" line which is not comparable to legos, but to duplos (another product of the lego company). I have seen nothing to indicate that duplos are superior to megabloks. My children love their legos, but they also love the megabloks. Because the tolerances are looser (which works due to the significantly larger scale) the megabloks are *much* easier to work with than legos. Brand new lego bricks are hard to snap together and snap apart (even an adult will feel some discomfort in the fingers after awhile).
in my household we routinely build "barns" out of megabloks. the 1 and 4 year old both love it. And I challenge you to build as tall a tower out of legos as megabloks. It can certainly be done though it will take much longer and the only additional stability is from being denser. When I can build a tower of megabloks (using the 1x1 block) that is as tall as I am I have to seriously question what makes your megablok buildings fall over. Maybe it isn't the blocks that are crap, but the builder.
Yeah, prior to having kids and actually using megabloks I was biased myself. But we got a box of used (and well worn) megabloks donated and it was an eye opener. Sure, my grandchildren won't be playing with these same blocks (35+ year old lego pieces are loose, but mostly still snap together whereas megabloks show the same amount of wear after a few years), but that doesn't make them crap. And, due to the larger size, they aren't as sensitive to loose fits.
(And in case it isn't clear, yeah, the one year old *does* play with legos. Sure, that goes against the age ratings. No, building sets doesn't happen, mostly it is playing with minifigs and constructed items. The biggest age issue is swallowing and parenting/supervision solves that.)
what are you trying to say? How is he attempting to smuggle words into English? What does that even mean?
Now, just guessing so this may be way off, but are you objecting to "LibreOffice" because it uses a "non-English" word as part of its name? If so, why is this bad? Would your objection apply to something called "KOffice" because it also includes a "non-English" 'word' ('K' is certainly not a word") in it? What about using a non-word as a name, perhaps something that has immediate humorous and/or negative connotations on first hearing, such as "wii"?
On the first hand I don't understand the basis of the objection ("smuggling words") and on the second I'm not sure why you think it matters.
my wife is a vegetarian (if you see my post above consider her a saint for arranging the meat purchasing) and the main reason she doesn't want to eat from the same grill is taste-taint.
Put it another way, if you detest cigarette smoke (it makes me nauseous), would you want to eat in a smoke filled restaurant? Of course not. I suspect it is a natural consequence of her avoiding meat, but the taste (and smell) of it is usually nauseating for her. There are exceptions, but that is her normal reaction.
It isn't necessarily about "the evil taint of meat" but about picking up something (a flavor) that she doesn't like.
Absolutely. Goat meat is tasty, but not as easy to get. I really like a middle eastern style goat stew. Because goat meat hasn't been commercialized like beef and poultry the goat meat you can get is often of better quality than either beef or poultry.
*Good* beef is also tasty. If you can afford it, avoid the grocery mart meat products and buy something that wasn't raised in a stall and pumped full of chemicals. The meat not only looks different, it cooks different (less fat) and tastes wonderful. I never cared for steak (or any beef product, really) when growing up. Now I have the resources to buy by-the-cow and get really good beef from locally raised cattle.
Recently extended this to buying a slaughtered hog as well as slaughtered sheep (both locally raised). I used to not care for lamb overly much, but it tastes good (and makes better kibbeh than I've had before).
Buying quality meat definitely requires a bigger food budget, and to do it economically requires a capacious deep freeze, so I understand it simply isn't an option for many people. But if and when you can, it is definitely worth it.
You seem to be forgetting (or perhaps simply don't know) about the mass murders perpetrated by the British. Its nice to think about Ghandi and peaceful resistance as some kind of new-agey feel good thing where "love conquers all". The reality is that people died. Machine gunned down where they stood. Kent State was terrible, but isn't a touch on what real oppression feels like.
Unless your A2 has been modified... the 3 round burst is achieved by a rachet, other than that it is a normal full auto. This is significant not just in bypassing, but if you fire on 3 round burst and only discharge two rounds (not actually that hard and can happen accidentally) then your next "burst" will consist of a single round.
dear god. Don't they have lawyers review these? "If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent..." um, minors can't enter into contracts? WTF?
Interestingly, you haven't seen any reliable studies that conclusively say that they can. If you actually care about the subject it isn't that hard to educate yourself (hint for the search impaired: peter gutmann).
Unreadable sectors... hmm... and somehow you want it *proven* that someone will have difficulty reading that?
Remapped sectors -- oh, you mean the ones that the drives firmware won't allow you to read?
Etc. -- couldn't think of anything else?
I did leave some raisable points unanswered, but that is where educating yourself comes in.
Look, if you have an SSD then physical destruction is going to be a better bet than using a single pass with zeros, but even then it requires someone with equipment and knowledge. Spinning magnetic platters are easy to render unusable (the single wipe, but be sure to confirm that it actually completed) unless someone trots out a floppy or MFM/RLL encoded drive (I have one, btw, but not many people have use for a drive with a capacity of 40MB...)
I was surprised that a friend of mine is buying Win8. But then I discovered something: he bought his system before Win7 and avoided Vista by installing WinXP. Now he needs a new operating system and MS is practically giving Win8 away.
For products with real cost in their production (meaning something like hardware) last year's models are marked down in an effort to recover costs with the new year models being priced at a premium. But software has no particular production cost (development, yes, but per unit there is no significant cost of production) so pricing last year's model above *this* year's is a way to encourage uptake of the new model. Those who have a need to avoid the new model pay a premium for the privilege, but users as a whole are moved to the new environment.
And that is a win when you are trying to convince shareholders of the value of Metro...
the Surface is actually a very solid (physically) device with much higher usability than my iPad (although I only have an iPad 2).
That sounds interesting. What is "much higher usability" -- by itself that statement means nothing.
Having a kickstand, USB port, microSD card expansion slot, attachable keyboard,
Those are common features of android tablets (and kickstand and attachable keyboard are certainly available for iOS devices). What about their presence on the Surface makes the Surface notable for having them?
larger (admittedly lower resolution than the "New iPad") screen,
So, even though it came out after the new ipad it doesn't achieve the same resolution? That's a shame.
direct access to the file system and bundled Office makes the Surface worth iPad money.
For some folks I'm sure those are features worth paying for. Hasn't seemed to be that significant to the overall market, however.
I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash.
I'm really not quite sure what to say here. Maybe you aren't aware that the lack of flash is a *feature*? Not everyone wants to have crappy flash apps whether its on a mobile device or not. My desktop systems are flash free since I have a choice in the matter.
For the record, I don't hate the Surface, I just fail to see anything to be excited about. The Samsung Galaxy Tab is similar specs at similar price (even having flash, ugh!) with the advantage of a mature marketplace. Or, a new ipad is better specs and a mature marketplace for a similar price balanced by the lack of a USB port or SD card slot. Its just hard to see any place for the Surface other than those who want to run MS Office on a tablet.
That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.
Again, I'm not sure you understand that this is not a negative for a significant fraction of users.
its fun to bash java for being slow (having slow execution speed), no matter how untrue it is. I'd rather bash it for its faults -- to start I'll name two:
1. Slow startup. This may contribute to the reputation for slowness, but is really just the setup. It isn't slow execution speed, its the latency from "I want to run this" to "application is started". I'm not saying startup speed should inherently be faster, just that this is a negative and it is also true.
2. Static memory allocation. WTF! You too can re-live the glory days of Apple's operating system before they jumped the shark and went bsd. How much memory an application can possibly use is set as a property/execution parameter and can only be altered between executions. Ummm... seriously? I've always assumed this was due to the VM model they chose and a misguided attempt at security by shackling programs to outdated paradigms, but really?
1. "Apple's control of what you can and cannot do on your computer"
Right, just the other day I was thinking, "gee, it would be really nice if I could run non-Mac applications, too bad I can't compile Qt and use a non-native environment." With the ability to compile there is no "controlling what 'you' can and cannot do".
2. "the Apple tax you pay for the hardware"
Man! That always burns me up to. I mean, once I spec out a system from somewhere else that actually meets the same specification why do the prices always line up? I can't figure that one out either.
3. "What can anyone possibly stand to lose by making more software available on more platforms?"
Well, you have a point. I mean, its not like netflix is avoiding a linux release of its client, or Microsoft doesn't provide its Office Suite on Linux. No company or consortium would have anything to lose by making more software available on more platforms.
Which is why the normal behavior is to classify a document to the highest level possible. There is no penalty that I'm aware of for overclassifying a document, but it can certainly be a career ender to underclassify. So don't think about it, it isn't worth it. If you can classify at TS then do so. Apply every caveat you have the ability to. (Although to be fair the caveats generally "apply themselves" its the S vs TS that's more of an issue.)
Its pretty simple, actually. The lobbyists for mass media (MPAA/RIAA/etc) want complete control of culture and related business through copyright, but to do that they need to get some reforms passed. One of the trends has been to have a treaty which requires the various countries to "conform" with one another. But somehow in the process of conforming, the laws in every jurisdiction change.
For an observer in the US who is told that a piece of legislation has its terms as required to conform with international copyright norms it appears that we are having to conform to the rest of the world. Change places, same song and dance.
The fence is there around apple's walled garden and for many people that is a *good* thing. This is hard for some folks to understand, they are so wrapped up in themselves, their desires and wanting everyone else to be like them.
Let's take a simple example: in OS X 10.8 unsigned apps are not allowed to run by default. This is a *good* thing for security -- something the user *should* care about as it helps to mitigate the risks associated with the *freedom* of an essentially unregulated Internet. If the java exploit results in download of malware, but execution of the malware fails due to this check it is a *good* thing.
Freedom is never free, and one of the costs of an open network is the abuses that will be done by folks with malicious intent. Finding ways to mitigate this risk on an end node -- as opposed to trying to bring an end to the open network -- is IMO a better solution. Many choose to run antivirus software to mitigate the risk of getting infected. I choose to not run antivirus (unless I'm checking specific files or directory trees) because I *want* to keep the malicious files around and don't want them deleted. But I don't go around telling people they shouldn't run antivirus software...
As with most things the details of any given real situation make things less tidy, but to assert that a walled garden that has restrictions is necessarily a bad thing for all users is to operate with some serious blinders.
You are describing LanMan (LM) hashing, not NTLM. And it is even worse than being limited to two runs of 7 characters, they are upcased before hashing so mixing case has no impact. NTLM still sucks (and there are rainbow tables due to the lack of salting), but it is a major improvement over LM.
Just as a note: using a rainbow table will crack the password very quickly, but that is because you (or someone else) expended a lot of computing time to generate those tables. And those tables take up space. Not much for LM, but generating NTLM rainbow tables is slower and takes up more space. The point is that the time-to-crack is only seconds when not considering the time-to-generate. Given the ready availability of LM, NTLM and (unsalted) MD5 rainbow tables that is a fairly reasonable view, but you still have to download them and for good coverage the tables get quite large.
You are confused. LM is not NTLM. With LanMan (LM) hashing the passwords are up-cased before hashing. They are also partitioned -- the first partition is characters 1 to 7, the second is characters 8 to 14. If you have an 8 character LM password then there are two hashes, one for a 7 character and the second for the eighth character. Because LM reduces the keyspace enormously (upcasing), limits the size of what is fed into a hash (1-7 characters), and limits the total length of the password (only up to 14 characters) it is garbage. Rainbow tables for up to 7 character LM passwords (which is is all that can exist) are readily available. LM was dead on delivery.
NTLM, on the other hand, is much better. Still weak and pitiful (no salt!?) and susceptible to rainbow tables, but a definite improvement. The thing is, many places *don't* disable LM hashing so there will be NTLM/and/ LM hashes of the credentials. As the user, the safest thing to do is use at least a 15 character password: this precludes the use of LM and Windows doesn't generate it, even if it is not disabled. While NTLM is not great, a decent 15+ character passphrase is unlikely to be in a dictionary, won't be susceptible to rainbow tables and would reduce the attack to a brute force.
I haven't read TFA, but this case was interesting to computer forensic circles because the trial was broadcast and computer forensics played a role -- it is not particularly convenient to track a trial, fly there and attend court to follow it but this trial was easy to follow. So, with that in mind, I find it interesting that somone "just discovered" that she was using Firefox because *that* was the source for the browser evidence that was put forth. Unfortunately, it was entirely bungled. I don't recall the historic versions of Firefox, but what she was using was newish and Firefox had changed the storage method for history, etc.
This is significant, because the forensic tools hadn't caught up yet. The detective(s) working the case attended a class by the author of the tool they were using, said they were having problems and he hacked out a fix. The detective(s) used this to provide evidence pertaining to the number of searches for a particular term set. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the quick fix was not accurate (resulted in inflating the count) and the results were never verified or crosschecked in any manner. The defense had a field day.
In terms of certifications I don't recall if the testifying detective had any, though I'm sure she did. The main error was one of general process (failure to validate the finding) with a secondary of using a not-quite-working tool (for the new version of firefox) without being more open with the tool's author as to their needs. But that is lesser: a well established component of methodology is to validate any finding of significance.
In the end, the prosecution did not make their case and the defendant was found not guilty. People don't like it (most want someone to be punished in murder cases, particularly when juveniles are involved), but that is how our legal system is supposed to work.
You say "higher abstract thought" but it is actually just any skilled field. Try linguists -- I thought I'd never run into such arrogant, self important assholes until I was mixed in another group of skilled professionals.
It doesn't matter what field it is, and it doesn't require "higher abstract thought". The only thing that seems to vary the arrogance concentration is the extent to which members believe they are "special". Among linguists that (in my experience) is the frequency with which you can encounter another linguist knowing the same language. A native English speaker who knows Spanish is of no account in the southwest, but in middle America expertise in Japanese, Mandarin, Korean, Arabic, Farsi, etc., is of some note.
It is all about the perceived rarity, the individual's inflated sense of expertise, and their need for validation by looking down at others.
The most modest and humble people I have known have also been among the most expert in their fields.
so... you are saying Danger failed, not due to technical issues, but due to Microsoft being unable to release a working product? I think that is a fair paraphrase of gp's "Microsoft massively botches the release..."
as this started with the presidential election i feel that I should point out the electoral college. although common belief is that the president is elected via a general election this is not actually the case. Vote for the third candidate all you want, it makes no difference. OTOH, if you look at the third candidate you will realize that it is the same as the first two, but this time with mint flavor.
if your experience is california you might not want to make a grand conspiracy claim.
For what its worth, in NJ it is *very* common to sue following accidents. The way it works is if there's an accident you make sure you are part of it, then on the final day you can do so, file the lawsuit. The plaintiffs know exactly the amount to sue for (there's a standard settlement amount for pain and suffering/soft tissue injuries) which comes in at exactly the insurance company's limit to worry about.
NJ is notorious for the suing and it impacts insurance in the area. Bottom line is, there is no state-to-state consistency in how this is handled.
Slashdot Mirror
to which megabloks are you referring? There's the "first builders" line which is not comparable to legos, but to duplos (another product of the lego company). I have seen nothing to indicate that duplos are superior to megabloks. My children love their legos, but they also love the megabloks. Because the tolerances are looser (which works due to the significantly larger scale) the megabloks are *much* easier to work with than legos. Brand new lego bricks are hard to snap together and snap apart (even an adult will feel some discomfort in the fingers after awhile).
in my household we routinely build "barns" out of megabloks. the 1 and 4 year old both love it. And I challenge you to build as tall a tower out of legos as megabloks. It can certainly be done though it will take much longer and the only additional stability is from being denser. When I can build a tower of megabloks (using the 1x1 block) that is as tall as I am I have to seriously question what makes your megablok buildings fall over. Maybe it isn't the blocks that are crap, but the builder.
Yeah, prior to having kids and actually using megabloks I was biased myself. But we got a box of used (and well worn) megabloks donated and it was an eye opener. Sure, my grandchildren won't be playing with these same blocks (35+ year old lego pieces are loose, but mostly still snap together whereas megabloks show the same amount of wear after a few years), but that doesn't make them crap. And, due to the larger size, they aren't as sensitive to loose fits.
(And in case it isn't clear, yeah, the one year old *does* play with legos. Sure, that goes against the age ratings. No, building sets doesn't happen, mostly it is playing with minifigs and constructed items. The biggest age issue is swallowing and parenting/supervision solves that.)
what are you trying to say? How is he attempting to smuggle words into English? What does that even mean?
Now, just guessing so this may be way off, but are you objecting to "LibreOffice" because it uses a "non-English" word as part of its name? If so, why is this bad? Would your objection apply to something called "KOffice" because it also includes a "non-English" 'word' ('K' is certainly not a word") in it? What about using a non-word as a name, perhaps something that has immediate humorous and/or negative connotations on first hearing, such as "wii"?
On the first hand I don't understand the basis of the objection ("smuggling words") and on the second I'm not sure why you think it matters.
my wife is a vegetarian (if you see my post above consider her a saint for arranging the meat purchasing) and the main reason she doesn't want to eat from the same grill is taste-taint.
Put it another way, if you detest cigarette smoke (it makes me nauseous), would you want to eat in a smoke filled restaurant? Of course not. I suspect it is a natural consequence of her avoiding meat, but the taste (and smell) of it is usually nauseating for her. There are exceptions, but that is her normal reaction.
It isn't necessarily about "the evil taint of meat" but about picking up something (a flavor) that she doesn't like.
Absolutely. Goat meat is tasty, but not as easy to get. I really like a middle eastern style goat stew. Because goat meat hasn't been commercialized like beef and poultry the goat meat you can get is often of better quality than either beef or poultry.
*Good* beef is also tasty. If you can afford it, avoid the grocery mart meat products and buy something that wasn't raised in a stall and pumped full of chemicals. The meat not only looks different, it cooks different (less fat) and tastes wonderful. I never cared for steak (or any beef product, really) when growing up. Now I have the resources to buy by-the-cow and get really good beef from locally raised cattle.
Recently extended this to buying a slaughtered hog as well as slaughtered sheep (both locally raised). I used to not care for lamb overly much, but it tastes good (and makes better kibbeh than I've had before).
Buying quality meat definitely requires a bigger food budget, and to do it economically requires a capacious deep freeze, so I understand it simply isn't an option for many people. But if and when you can, it is definitely worth it.
You seem to be forgetting (or perhaps simply don't know) about the mass murders perpetrated by the British. Its nice to think about Ghandi and peaceful resistance as some kind of new-agey feel good thing where "love conquers all". The reality is that people died. Machine gunned down where they stood. Kent State was terrible, but isn't a touch on what real oppression feels like.
Unless your A2 has been modified... the 3 round burst is achieved by a rachet, other than that it is a normal full auto. This is significant not just in bypassing, but if you fire on 3 round burst and only discharge two rounds (not actually that hard and can happen accidentally) then your next "burst" will consist of a single round.
Yes, the judge can set the amount. For example see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/12384515619/riaa-files-expected-appeal-over-judges-decision-to-decrease-jury-award-jammie-thomas-trial.shtml
dear god. Don't they have lawyers review these? "If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent..." um, minors can't enter into contracts? WTF?
Interestingly, you haven't seen any reliable studies that conclusively say that they can. If you actually care about the subject it isn't that hard to educate yourself (hint for the search impaired: peter gutmann).
Unreadable sectors... hmm... and somehow you want it *proven* that someone will have difficulty reading that?
Remapped sectors -- oh, you mean the ones that the drives firmware won't allow you to read?
Etc. -- couldn't think of anything else?
I did leave some raisable points unanswered, but that is where educating yourself comes in.
Look, if you have an SSD then physical destruction is going to be a better bet than using a single pass with zeros, but even then it requires someone with equipment and knowledge. Spinning magnetic platters are easy to render unusable (the single wipe, but be sure to confirm that it actually completed) unless someone trots out a floppy or MFM/RLL encoded drive (I have one, btw, but not many people have use for a drive with a capacity of 40MB...)
I was surprised that a friend of mine is buying Win8. But then I discovered something: he bought his system before Win7 and avoided Vista by installing WinXP. Now he needs a new operating system and MS is practically giving Win8 away.
For products with real cost in their production (meaning something like hardware) last year's models are marked down in an effort to recover costs with the new year models being priced at a premium. But software has no particular production cost (development, yes, but per unit there is no significant cost of production) so pricing last year's model above *this* year's is a way to encourage uptake of the new model. Those who have a need to avoid the new model pay a premium for the privilege, but users as a whole are moved to the new environment.
And that is a win when you are trying to convince shareholders of the value of Metro...
the Surface is actually a very solid (physically) device with much higher usability than my iPad (although I only have an iPad 2).
That sounds interesting. What is "much higher usability" -- by itself that statement means nothing.
Having a kickstand, USB port, microSD card expansion slot, attachable keyboard,
Those are common features of android tablets (and kickstand and attachable keyboard are certainly available for iOS devices). What about their presence on the Surface makes the Surface notable for having them?
larger (admittedly lower resolution than the "New iPad") screen,
So, even though it came out after the new ipad it doesn't achieve the same resolution? That's a shame.
direct access to the file system and bundled Office makes the Surface worth iPad money.
For some folks I'm sure those are features worth paying for. Hasn't seemed to be that significant to the overall market, however.
I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash.
I'm really not quite sure what to say here. Maybe you aren't aware that the lack of flash is a *feature*? Not everyone wants to have crappy flash apps whether its on a mobile device or not. My desktop systems are flash free since I have a choice in the matter.
For the record, I don't hate the Surface, I just fail to see anything to be excited about. The Samsung Galaxy Tab is similar specs at similar price (even having flash, ugh!) with the advantage of a mature marketplace. Or, a new ipad is better specs and a mature marketplace for a similar price balanced by the lack of a USB port or SD card slot. Its just hard to see any place for the Surface other than those who want to run MS Office on a tablet.
That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.
Again, I'm not sure you understand that this is not a negative for a significant fraction of users.
its fun to bash java for being slow (having slow execution speed), no matter how untrue it is. I'd rather bash it for its faults -- to start I'll name two:
1. Slow startup. This may contribute to the reputation for slowness, but is really just the setup. It isn't slow execution speed, its the latency from "I want to run this" to "application is started". I'm not saying startup speed should inherently be faster, just that this is a negative and it is also true.
2. Static memory allocation. WTF! You too can re-live the glory days of Apple's operating system before they jumped the shark and went bsd. How much memory an application can possibly use is set as a property/execution parameter and can only be altered between executions. Ummm... seriously? I've always assumed this was due to the VM model they chose and a misguided attempt at security by shackling programs to outdated paradigms, but really?
hmm... uninformed or trolling?
1. "Apple's control of what you can and cannot do on your computer"
Right, just the other day I was thinking, "gee, it would be really nice if I could run non-Mac applications, too bad I can't compile Qt and use a non-native environment." With the ability to compile there is no "controlling what 'you' can and cannot do".
2. "the Apple tax you pay for the hardware"
Man! That always burns me up to. I mean, once I spec out a system from somewhere else that actually meets the same specification why do the prices always line up? I can't figure that one out either.
3. "What can anyone possibly stand to lose by making more software available on more platforms?"
Well, you have a point. I mean, its not like netflix is avoiding a linux release of its client, or Microsoft doesn't provide its Office Suite on Linux. No company or consortium would have anything to lose by making more software available on more platforms.
Which is why the normal behavior is to classify a document to the highest level possible. There is no penalty that I'm aware of for overclassifying a document, but it can certainly be a career ender to underclassify. So don't think about it, it isn't worth it. If you can classify at TS then do so. Apply every caveat you have the ability to. (Although to be fair the caveats generally "apply themselves" its the S vs TS that's more of an issue.)
Its pretty simple, actually. The lobbyists for mass media (MPAA/RIAA/etc) want complete control of culture and related business through copyright, but to do that they need to get some reforms passed. One of the trends has been to have a treaty which requires the various countries to "conform" with one another. But somehow in the process of conforming, the laws in every jurisdiction change.
For an observer in the US who is told that a piece of legislation has its terms as required to conform with international copyright norms it appears that we are having to conform to the rest of the world. Change places, same song and dance.
The fence is there around apple's walled garden and for many people that is a *good* thing. This is hard for some folks to understand, they are so wrapped up in themselves, their desires and wanting everyone else to be like them.
Let's take a simple example: in OS X 10.8 unsigned apps are not allowed to run by default. This is a *good* thing for security -- something the user *should* care about as it helps to mitigate the risks associated with the *freedom* of an essentially unregulated Internet. If the java exploit results in download of malware, but execution of the malware fails due to this check it is a *good* thing.
Freedom is never free, and one of the costs of an open network is the abuses that will be done by folks with malicious intent. Finding ways to mitigate this risk on an end node -- as opposed to trying to bring an end to the open network -- is IMO a better solution. Many choose to run antivirus software to mitigate the risk of getting infected. I choose to not run antivirus (unless I'm checking specific files or directory trees) because I *want* to keep the malicious files around and don't want them deleted. But I don't go around telling people they shouldn't run antivirus software...
As with most things the details of any given real situation make things less tidy, but to assert that a walled garden that has restrictions is necessarily a bad thing for all users is to operate with some serious blinders.
i always like to point out that it *is* a word. Only morons who don't use dictionaries think it isn't.
You are describing LanMan (LM) hashing, not NTLM. And it is even worse than being limited to two runs of 7 characters, they are upcased before hashing so mixing case has no impact. NTLM still sucks (and there are rainbow tables due to the lack of salting), but it is a major improvement over LM.
Just as a note: using a rainbow table will crack the password very quickly, but that is because you (or someone else) expended a lot of computing time to generate those tables. And those tables take up space. Not much for LM, but generating NTLM rainbow tables is slower and takes up more space. The point is that the time-to-crack is only seconds when not considering the time-to-generate. Given the ready availability of LM, NTLM and (unsalted) MD5 rainbow tables that is a fairly reasonable view, but you still have to download them and for good coverage the tables get quite large.
You are confused. LM is not NTLM. With LanMan (LM) hashing the passwords are up-cased before hashing. They are also partitioned -- the first partition is characters 1 to 7, the second is characters 8 to 14. If you have an 8 character LM password then there are two hashes, one for a 7 character and the second for the eighth character. Because LM reduces the keyspace enormously (upcasing), limits the size of what is fed into a hash (1-7 characters), and limits the total length of the password (only up to 14 characters) it is garbage. Rainbow tables for up to 7 character LM passwords (which is is all that can exist) are readily available. LM was dead on delivery.
NTLM, on the other hand, is much better. Still weak and pitiful (no salt!?) and susceptible to rainbow tables, but a definite improvement. The thing is, many places *don't* disable LM hashing so there will be NTLM /and/ LM hashes of the credentials. As the user, the safest thing to do is use at least a 15 character password: this precludes the use of LM and Windows doesn't generate it, even if it is not disabled. While NTLM is not great, a decent 15+ character passphrase is unlikely to be in a dictionary, won't be susceptible to rainbow tables and would reduce the attack to a brute force.
I haven't read TFA, but this case was interesting to computer forensic circles because the trial was broadcast and computer forensics played a role -- it is not particularly convenient to track a trial, fly there and attend court to follow it but this trial was easy to follow. So, with that in mind, I find it interesting that somone "just discovered" that she was using Firefox because *that* was the source for the browser evidence that was put forth. Unfortunately, it was entirely bungled. I don't recall the historic versions of Firefox, but what she was using was newish and Firefox had changed the storage method for history, etc.
This is significant, because the forensic tools hadn't caught up yet. The detective(s) working the case attended a class by the author of the tool they were using, said they were having problems and he hacked out a fix. The detective(s) used this to provide evidence pertaining to the number of searches for a particular term set. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the quick fix was not accurate (resulted in inflating the count) and the results were never verified or crosschecked in any manner. The defense had a field day.
In terms of certifications I don't recall if the testifying detective had any, though I'm sure she did. The main error was one of general process (failure to validate the finding) with a secondary of using a not-quite-working tool (for the new version of firefox) without being more open with the tool's author as to their needs. But that is lesser: a well established component of methodology is to validate any finding of significance.
In the end, the prosecution did not make their case and the defendant was found not guilty. People don't like it (most want someone to be punished in murder cases, particularly when juveniles are involved), but that is how our legal system is supposed to work.
They beat the snot out of using a burn barrel. Throw a book into one and *poof* goodbye book hello dust. Amazing things to use.
You say "higher abstract thought" but it is actually just any skilled field. Try linguists -- I thought I'd never run into such arrogant, self important assholes until I was mixed in another group of skilled professionals.
It doesn't matter what field it is, and it doesn't require "higher abstract thought". The only thing that seems to vary the arrogance concentration is the extent to which members believe they are "special". Among linguists that (in my experience) is the frequency with which you can encounter another linguist knowing the same language. A native English speaker who knows Spanish is of no account in the southwest, but in middle America expertise in Japanese, Mandarin, Korean, Arabic, Farsi, etc., is of some note.
It is all about the perceived rarity, the individual's inflated sense of expertise, and their need for validation by looking down at others.
The most modest and humble people I have known have also been among the most expert in their fields.
so... you are saying Danger failed, not due to technical issues, but due to Microsoft being unable to release a working product? I think that is a fair paraphrase of gp's "Microsoft massively botches the release..."
as this started with the presidential election i feel that I should point out the electoral college. although common belief is that the president is elected via a general election this is not actually the case. Vote for the third candidate all you want, it makes no difference. OTOH, if you look at the third candidate you will realize that it is the same as the first two, but this time with mint flavor.
if your experience is california you might not want to make a grand conspiracy claim.
For what its worth, in NJ it is *very* common to sue following accidents. The way it works is if there's an accident you make sure you are part of it, then on the final day you can do so, file the lawsuit. The plaintiffs know exactly the amount to sue for (there's a standard settlement amount for pain and suffering/soft tissue injuries) which comes in at exactly the insurance company's limit to worry about.
NJ is notorious for the suing and it impacts insurance in the area. Bottom line is, there is no state-to-state consistency in how this is handled.