I think the average Aussie would sooner eat their Akubra than become the 52nd state of the US. Why on earth would we want to drop our standard of living to match yours?
Just because your personal standard of living may be high does not mean that the average person in australia is any better off than the average person in America. Your jingoism is no less funny than rabid Americans'. Your logic, however, leaves just as much to be desired.
AA does not mandate. Mandates and quotas are illegal. AA does however allow you to weigh in factor as one factor (out of many) in hiring a person.
Apparently you are unaware of the statues that give companies with a certain percentage (hey, that's a quota!) of minority employees tax breaks, federal funding, and other advantages.
A lot of people are against AA but I have never heard any of them claim that Racism or sexism does not exist anymore.
The way to make racism go away is to stop placing so much fucking importance on people's race. AA is racism, plain and simple. If a qualified white applicant for a job or university spot is turned down to allow a LESS qualified applicant simply because the less qualified candidate is a certain color, that's racism. If both candidates are equally qualified, race SHOULD NOT be the deciding factor. If people were proposing that whiteness be a positive factor in determining admission to universities, people would riot. How is that fair? How does PROMOTING racial preference have anything to do with equality? Why do you assume in your example 1. that the manager of the company is going to be white and 2. that he/she is going to have a bias against anyone not white? You're making ad hoc assumptions here, and they're unfair to the large number of bosses who just want the best PERSON for the job based on what that person has done and can do, not based on what color they are. I was once hired for a job solely because I'm white (which I didn't find out until later, turns out the store manager was told he HAD to hire at least one non-Mexican person, because before me 100% of the employees were Mexican, and I was the only non-Mexican who applied. Had I known that my race was the only reason I was hired, I would not have taken the job, and when I found out, I quit.) I am against AA, and I don't claim that racism doesn't exist, I claim that AA actively promotes it. Here again you make an ad hoc assumption, that people who are against AA are also against suing for racial discrimination. That does not follow naturally and while it's obvious you have a lot of hate in your heart, please don't use that as a basis for an arguement. I really fail to see how you can advocate suing for racial discrimination and AA at the same time. Perhaps you are a lawyer?
'Discrimination' may well have value in righting wrongs.
My ancestors were enslaved by the Egyptians a few thousand years ago. Should they pay me reparations? How does reversing discrimination pay back those who were unfairly treated? Should the great grandson of a slave owner owe money to the great grandson of a slave? Why? Are you saying that not only should those who HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG be punished, but those who haven't had anything done to them should be rewarded? How the HELL does that compute? I thought we cleared up the whole 'sins of the father' thing a while back. It isn't fair. We don't execute the children of murderers. We don't jail the children of thieves. Are you suggesting that we should?
As some US President said (Truman?), this is like freeing the slaves from their leg irons and then expecting them to have a fair chance of winning a 100 metre sprint.
ever hear of Jesse Owens? FloJo? Carl Lewis? Bo Jackson? Michael Jordan? Randy Moss? Tiger Woods? How about Reggie Jackson? Magic Johnson? Daunte Culpepper? Kareem? Dr. J? The Juice? (okay, bad example) When black atheletes have been given a fair shot (and even when they weren't), they managed to do pretty well. I really doubt that being a minority is any longer a hinderance in most pro and college level sports. Golf may have been the last one, and Tiger and Vijay Singh took care of that nicely. Arthur Ashe and the Venus sisters locked down tennis. Your point was valid many years ago, but it's time to get current.
A vastly disproportionate number of whites get into top universities compared to other races. Either you contend:
I contend that white people make up 75% of this country. That isn't racist, it's just fact. Why is it that people want an equal number of each color student when there aren't an equal number living in this country? There's a reason people who aren't white are called...wait for it...minorities. Now, if enrollment was 99% white, 1% other, then you'd have a case. But in fact, minority enrollment at most colleges here in the U.S. is ABOVE national ratios of white to minority, across the board. I don't see some vast conspiracy in that, it's just the way things are. I don't think it's any more fair to allow a less qualified applicant in because they're NOT white than it is to deny a qualified applicant entrance because they aren't white. Race should NOT determine preference, of any kind. period. if you say that people should get better or worse treatment depending on what color their skin is, you are a racist and you are part of the problem. Why don't we focus *less* on what color people are and *more* on what they do as individuals?
Picking stuff up, carrying it around, and putting it down somewhere else (a lot) is a well recogized sign of a possible shoplifter... They'd probably be able to get the police to search you.
They could *maybe* get the police to *ask* you to empty your pockets, or at the very worst, they may give you a pat down. But they won't do anything more than that unless they find contraband. I've been accused of being a shoplifter many times because I am extremely picky and I change my mind a lot. Whenever it happens, I tell them to call the cops, and that I'll be filing a complaint against them when I am vindicated, which I know to be a certainty. Usually they drop it right there, and the one time they *did* call the cops on me, they gave me a gift cert for 50 bucks because I had nothing on me, just like I told them. Far from banning me from the store, they instead fell all over themselves apologizing. Your location may be different, but I *highly* doubt they would ban you from the store for *not* stealing. If they did, I would file a harassment charge against them, citing their false accusation and subsequent banning.
I've often wondered: on what grounds are they allowed to detain you?
They aren't. You can walk out the door and keep on going, and unless there's a cop handy you're off scott free. Of course, they don't want you to know this, so they will threaten you and may even grab you, at which point they have exceeded their legal rights and have committed assault. We always see on tv the heroic bystander tripping the fleeing pickpocket or purse-snatcher, but in reality people doing that could be arrested themselves for assault, excepting the one (or few, my memory is bad) place(s) here in the US where you are required by law to attempt to stop any non-violent crime. (a la the seinfeld series finale)
You're a moron. Seriously. Do you not understand the concept of SNL's 'commercials'? They aren't for real products that are currently out. If you comprehended the parent to your post, you would have noticed the line about the parody commercial appearing just after gillete released the Mach2, which indicates that the commercial was not for a current product. Are you stupid? Oh wait, you're posting on/., of course you are.
Then you won't object to the police RFID'ing all your posessions and putting CCD cameras with RFID readers in your home, car, office, etc. After all, that'd greatly reduce the chance of you stealing, and if you do, it'd catch you.
How exactly does one steal one's own possessions? No, I don't count cheating on your taxes, either, although the gov't sure does think you're 'stealing' if you do that.
Don't have your Kroger card? Then be prepared to pay $6 for a 12-pack of Coke instead of $3.
Funny, that's what the convenience store close to my house charges, and they don't even offer me the option of a card to halve it. Unless I want to trek to the Super Walmart, I either pay the 6 bucks or don't have soda. There has to be more than one store in your town (or in a nearby town). Perhaps you should go to a different store. It's like my grandpappy always used to say: good, cheap, fast: pick two. If you want convenience, and you want not to be tracked, you pay more. Personally, I go to wallyworld when I have the time, pay cash, and get good prices with no discount card. When I'm in a hurry, I go to the corner store and they extract insane amounts of cash from me. However, at that point I'm paying for more than just soda, I'm paying for convenience. When the time comes that a store forces me to have some card with my real data connected to it just to go there, I'll stop shopping there forever, and you should too...but a discount card is nothing new and nothing nefarious. They just want to sell you something...like everyone else in the world.
"Life *is* pain, Highness. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."
That's a good idea, but they could fix it easily by dumping the photo record attached to the tag if it ti returned to the shelf. I'd bet the security system already does this. Try this scenario:
Or this alternate one:
Grab a mach3 pack off the shelf
Wander around the store, deftly inserting it on a shelf in a completely unrelated department
repeat
Remember: It isn't illegal to put things back in the wrong place, it's just (mildly) cruel to the poor drones working there. If I knew where a store was in my area that did this, I would have a GREAT time blowing up furiously at them if they met me at the door/in the parking lot. I'd tell them to go ahead and call the cops, but that I'd sue them for harassment and discrimination when they found no razor blades on my person. I'd yell and scream and curse very loudly and just generally have a blast. I'd put in calls to the branch manager, regional manager...whoever I could get..assuming it's a chain store. Now, I realize that I'd never win any litigation, so I wouldn't actually file any....but it's always a nice threat. It also makes a nice impression to the other customers: "Hey, I didn't do anything and here you are harassing me! Hey other customers, watch out, if you don't look just like the manager, he'll call you a shoplifter! They don't like my kind around here! Watch your backs, they think you're all theives" etc etc. Now, would any of that accomplish anything? other than my own personal amusement, no. But it would be fun, and maybe after a few episodes of that they'd stop trusting their cameras so much.
Just make sure that you're ready to defend yourself in court. You'll need a lawyer to subpoena the video tapes and/or computer logs so that you can prove you put them back. If they're pissed enough they'll try to prosecute you even though they know you put them back.
Well, that's utter bullshit. They can not prosecute you. Businesses do not prosecute. They can press charges, but in this case, the police WOULD NOT PROSECUTE you. (and the law would be the entity prosecuting you, anyhow, not the store.) In any case, taking items off the shelf and then replacing them is not a crime. You would only be prosecuted if you walked out of their store with their merchandise (and again, the store would not be prosecuting you, Johnny Law would). Since their camera records people taking blades off the shelf, I imagine it would record them putting them back as well. If they know you put them back, they'd be stupid to try having you prosecuted. You need no lawyer to subpoena anything (which they don't have the power to do anyway). You don't have to prove you put the razor blades back, they would have to prove you did not, which they would be unable to do. Were they to make the HUGE mistake of calling the police on you, the police would watch the tapes, and/or pat you down or ask you to empty your pockets. Then they would apologize to you and hopefully you'd file a complaint with the store's branch manager/regional manager. People seem to have this (perhaps tv-inspired) fantasy that businesses can prosecute you, for things that aren't crimes, simply because they are 'mad at you'. However, the only legal action a business can take against you directly is to sue you, and that would be patently ridiculous in this case. Did you watch an episode of Ally McBeal to learn words like 'subpoena' and 'prosecute?' I ask because you should really learn what words mean before you use them.
What's funny is how you will see the blades on sale at Flea Markets.
Gee, and here I thought that flea markets somehow managed to get special deals on electronics and car stereo systems from the manufacturers! You mean the $45 27" Sony tv I saw at a flea market may have been stolen? Or the dvds for 2 bucks apiece? What a shame. I remember a time when flea markets weren't thought to be havens of stolen and unsafe goods...oh wait, no I don't.
Because the least common denominator has never been my thing. That's my whole point.
And I suppose that raising the lowest common demoninator has no value? I've never been one to try to *lower* standards to match the lowest common denominator, but raising the lowest common denominator has never been offensive to me.
It's dishonest of Microsoft to even use the word "security" to talk about their junk.
Dishonest? Come on. Just because you could write a program to break their security does not mean that it ISN'T security. Any lock can be picked or destroyed, does that mean that Master can't call their locks 'security?' Human guards can be killed or bribed, so it's dishonest to call night watchmen or private guards security? Your logic is absurd. Because most people 'see the same things' in ink blots does not mean that just anyone will be able to look at those same ink blots, deduce what words or phrases a particular person picked, determine whether they used first/last letter, two first letters, two last letters, last letter first word first letter last word, etc....then reconstruct their password. Yeah. Gaping hole, that. Much bigger problem than a post-it on the side of the monitor with a randomly generated 'secure' password written on it. You could also put the blots around the border of the login screen, but not number them. That way each person could also pick where in the circle/rectangle to start, and whether to go clockwise/counterclockwise. I don't see how that's less random than a spouse or pet name. Really, it's far more secure than you make it appear to be. They aren't going to just use only 10 total ink blots, you know. They also aren't trying to use the specific blots that give the specific responses they're looking for...Duh. BTW, what's a 'gappeing' hole?
Re:The Rorschach Test is normalized...
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 0
I've already written that trends found in inkblots already normalized would give good indications about answers to new inkblots along the same characteristics. Also, a decryption tool could easily check up the most common combinations for character input ( first-last, first-second, etc. ) without actually include them all, though it could be done as well. My point was that someone with Rorschach norms and minimal programming skills could come up with Rorschach "wordlists" pretty easily, and though it would be better protection than with a "birthday" password, the probabilities of cracking this kind of code are high enough for me to avoid this pseudo-random technique. Remembering a ( long enough ) random string is much safer than relying on processes being normalized for decades, but maybe it's asking too much effort here...
Hope you have fun with your inkblots, mate.
As I've said before, even if you use a brute-force attack on a 20 character password, it's still MORE SECURE than what MOST PEOPLE use. How is it that you don't understand this? Sure, perhaps YOU will just remember a randomly generated 40-character string including special symbols, but that doesn't mean a NORMAL person is going to. Also, many of us are forced by our jobs to change passwords every 30-45 days. Good luck rememorizing large strings in this environment. What this will do is keep more people (although not ALL people) from writing their passwords down, and will give a lot of people (although not ALL people) better passwords than they are currently using. Please tell me again why this is worse than using 'password' for your password. Also, I don't think anyone has said that you wouldn't be ABLE to enter numbers or special symbols as part of your password. If you WANT a stronger password, by all means use one. I just don't see how this would negatively affect anyone. You could have all 10 blots on the border of the normal login screen, whether winblowz or linsux. Only people who would otherwise use their pet's name or their birthday need USE them. Then you'd have to know in advance that they were using the inkblots to form their password before you could use your 'alphabetic chars only' brute force cracking program. In other words, it doesn't detract from security as much as you imply and it could be helpful to a large number of people. Why knock it, other than it's microshaft and you just gotta insult them...because we all know that prejudices are wrong but that doesn't stop most people from having them.
Re:your comment was 'easily breakable'
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Combined with the fact that the cracker is dealing only with alphabetic characters, you end up with a highly structured system, with an obvious, and likely quite fruitful, means of attack.
You still haven't explained how this is LESS SECURE than using 'sex' or 'god' or 'password', which would fall to a dictionary attack looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before a randomly generated set of 20 characters. Nowhere did I, the article, or anyone else say that this method produced the best passwords ever, just that they're better than what most people use, without being totally randomly generated and thus likely to be written down. They're not going to use the *same* inkblots for everyone. How would you know *which* inkblots the person used? Even if you could see the ones they used, how do you know if they used a single word or a phrase to describe each one? How do you know which word or phrase they used? How would you know if they used the first/last letter, or two first letters, or the two last letters for each blot? How would you keep from getting the account locked? Even if you could just try every permutation of 20 characters (plus upperase variants) it's still MORE FUCKING SECURE than most people's passwords, and normal people can remember these passwords without writing them down. More secure does not equal 'invulnerable', but you act as though if it isn't perfect, it isn't worth anything at all. You are a dipshit.
Re:your comment was 'easily breakable'
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
He was responding to another poster, not on the article.
relax
Um. What he said was wrong. It was stupid. It doesn't matter if he was replying to someone else or not, he should have read the article. That's what these comments are supposed to be about. That's what is supposed to give them context. You are dumb.
As far as relaxing goes, I'm the chillest person there ever was. I don't have to be all up in arms to bust some pretender to intelligence. Just because I don't let shit slide doesn't mean I'm not relaxed.:) Don't worry, I can correct people all day and never break a sweat.
What are you talking about? The whole point of the article was that you could remember passwords two characters at a time, when prompted with inkblots. I've seen this demonstrated... most of the people could come in two weeks later, and still be able to remember their password from the one-time demonstration.
Finally, someone who has a bit of uncommon sense. Like people will really be more likely to write down passwords generated this way than they are to write down a randomly generated 16+ character password. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I like how certain you are. Be strong. Don't allow for the possibility that you could be wrong!
1) People are lazy. They aren't going to look through ten inkblots and write down each one and then figure out the first and last letter of each. They are more likely to write their password down somewhere, or just click on the link that says "e-mail me a new password".
They are if they can't log on to do work until they do. Sure, perhaps they would just write it down, but they aren't neccessarily GOING to. I didn't see any mention of any 'email me a new password' link.
2) People are stupid. Normaly users would get a page saying "View each of these inkblots and write down...", but what they actually read is "blah blah blah pretty pictures blah blah blah click". Without the person administering the test standing behind them to explain what to do, most people would just glaze over, like they do whenever they are presented with instructions longer than 1 sentence.
That's a very cynical view of life, pal. I find it extremely amusing how many times I see or hear someone say 'people are stupid', without realizing that to everyone else, *THEY* are 'people'. Very rarely do people think *THEY* are stupid. You apparently don't think *you* are stupid, even though you make definitive statements without the least shred of evidence (other than your own opinion) to back them up, however everyone *else* must be stupid since they are not the almighty YOU.
3) Did they have a control group that attempted to remember their "strong" password? They state that it is unusual for a user to remember a strong password after one day, but I wonder how unusual?
With all of the experiments in the field of memory that have already been done, why would they need to do this? Maybe you could have actually researched *before* you posted? Nah.
4) "... by the umpteenth time you've logged in, you've remembered these twenty characters". Wouldn't it just be simpler to make them type the 20 characters over and over again 15 times? Then they remember it anyway, and don't have to reverse engineer the whole process.
Try it yourself. Write a string of 20 random characters 15 times first thing in the morning, then put it away and don't think about it until the next morning. If you can successfully reconstruct that list, you have an above average memory. Many people find it helpful when trying to recall information to have a mnemonic device, which in this case would be the inkblots. Using randomly generated blots, this would present a password that is *MORE SECURE* than the average password. Simply by consisting of 20 characters it is already more secure than many people's passwords, and will be less likely to be written down than a string that is just handed to someone.
Re:The Rorschach Test is normalized...
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 0
Since the Rorschach Test ( "what do these inkblots represent ?" ) has been used for decades, lots of norms have been collected, so there already are lists about the most popular answers. Even if these are new inkblots, the patterns found in general Rorschach norms can still apply. Way to go Microsoft, you've made a fool out of yourself again.
Yeah, because it would be impossible to generate a different set of ink blots every time you install/generate a new password. That would be SOOOOOOOOOOO technologically impossible! What were you thinking when you decided to post? Also, although people are SUGGESTED to use the first and last letter of the phrase *they* think of for each of FUCKING TEN DIFFERENT ink blots, they don't *have* to. They could decide to use the first two letters, or the last two. You're a fucking fool if you think this would be more easily cracked than someone's birthday, pet/spouse/child's name, or what's written on their deskplanner under they cryptic heading : pw. Let's all rush to diss on microshaft so fast that we forget to *think*.
your comment was 'easily breakable'
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: -1, Troll
This is not a secure password.
I see. So you mean all someone has to do is get you to agree to a deep psychological examination, then get access to your computer and try several different combos of the first and last letters of 'the most likely words or phrases', keeping in mind that there are 10 different blots, and you'll never know if you guessed right about some but not others. Please explain to me how that is not as secure as people using their birthday or 'password' or 'god'. You, sir, are a moron. The article didn't say it will be the most secure password ever, is specifically said that it will be a stronger password than most people use, and that people will be more likely to remember it without writing it on a post-it note 'hidden' by being stuck to the underside of a desk. Of course, reading and comprehending the article before posting is anathema to most slashdot pseudo-intellectuals like you.
The plate covers my friend was telling me about appear 100% transparent to the naked eye. However, when one takes a picture of the plate (presumably at an angle) its blacked out.
Why not just slap a thin layer of jelly on, then attach a very very thin sheet of plastic, as available at any home depot or really, just about any hardware store, then tape with scotch tape. I doubt any type of covering over your license plate will be 100% transparent...that sounds like marketeering to me. probably won't be noticed at speed by busy cops who are doing other stuff, but then again plain old dirt will do the same job, and if some cop actually DOES care enough to pull you over for it, just wipe it off, then reapply later. if done right (as in, not JUST on the plate but also on the surrounding vehicle) it can look accidental and not 'suspicious'. or you could just steal new plates every week or so. junkyards are a great place for that, since the owners of those vehicles will not miss those plates. or you could have a rotating license plate like the Knight Industries Two Thousand, aka K.I.T.T. That car had it all.
You're probably confusing Arab/American Black culture with Islam
Nope. Baptism is not a 'sect', btw. You mean Baptist. There's a difference, just like there's a major freaking difference between Christianity and Islam. His name is Jesus Christ and in Islam, he is not the chosen prophet and the only son of God, but is instead merely a prohpet, as Isiah or Micah was. This difference is enough to explode your theory, twit. I stand by my analysis of you. There are plenty of other things to which I could refer to expose the flaws in your premise, but there's no need.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the average Aussie would sooner eat their Akubra than become the 52nd state of the US. Why on earth would we want to drop our standard of living to match yours?
Just because your personal standard of living may be high does not mean that the average person in australia is any better off than the average person in America. Your jingoism is no less funny than rabid Americans'. Your logic, however, leaves just as much to be desired.
AA does not mandate. Mandates and quotas are illegal. AA does however allow you to weigh in factor as one factor (out of many) in hiring a person.
Apparently you are unaware of the statues that give companies with a certain percentage (hey, that's a quota!) of minority employees tax breaks, federal funding, and other advantages.
A lot of people are against AA but I have never heard any of them claim that Racism or sexism does not exist anymore.
The way to make racism go away is to stop placing so much fucking importance on people's race.
AA is racism, plain and simple. If a qualified white applicant for a job or university spot is turned down to allow a LESS qualified applicant simply because the less qualified candidate is a certain color, that's racism. If both candidates are equally qualified, race SHOULD NOT be the deciding factor. If people were proposing that whiteness be a positive factor in determining admission to universities, people would riot. How is that fair? How does PROMOTING racial preference have anything to do with equality? Why do you assume in your example 1. that the manager of the company is going to be white and 2. that he/she is going to have a bias against anyone not white? You're making ad hoc assumptions here, and they're unfair to the large number of bosses who just want the best PERSON for the job based on what that person has done and can do, not based on what color they are. I was once hired for a job solely because I'm white (which I didn't find out until later, turns out the store manager was told he HAD to hire at least one non-Mexican person, because before me 100% of the employees were Mexican, and I was the only non-Mexican who applied. Had I known that my race was the only reason I was hired, I would not have taken the job, and when I found out, I quit.) I am against AA, and I don't claim that racism doesn't exist, I claim that AA actively promotes it. Here again you make an ad hoc assumption, that people who are against AA are also against suing for racial discrimination. That does not follow naturally and while it's obvious you have a lot of hate in your heart, please don't use that as a basis for an arguement.
I really fail to see how you can advocate suing for racial discrimination and AA at the same time. Perhaps you are a lawyer?
'Discrimination' may well have value in righting wrongs.
My ancestors were enslaved by the Egyptians a few thousand years ago. Should they pay me reparations? How does reversing discrimination pay back those who were unfairly treated? Should the great grandson of a slave owner owe money to the great grandson of a slave? Why? Are you saying that not only should those who HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG be punished, but those who haven't had anything done to them should be rewarded? How the HELL does that compute? I thought we cleared up the whole 'sins of the father' thing a while back. It isn't fair. We don't execute the children of murderers. We don't jail the children of thieves. Are you suggesting that we should?
As some US President said (Truman?), this is like freeing the slaves from their leg irons and then expecting them to have a fair chance of winning a 100 metre sprint.
ever hear of Jesse Owens? FloJo? Carl Lewis? Bo Jackson? Michael Jordan? Randy Moss? Tiger Woods? How about Reggie Jackson? Magic Johnson? Daunte Culpepper? Kareem? Dr. J? The Juice? (okay, bad example)
When black atheletes have been given a fair shot (and even when they weren't), they managed to do pretty well. I really doubt that being a minority is any longer a hinderance in most pro and college level sports. Golf may have been the last one, and Tiger and Vijay Singh took care of that nicely. Arthur Ashe and the Venus sisters locked down tennis. Your point was valid many years ago, but it's time to get current.
A vastly disproportionate number of whites get into top universities compared to other races. Either you contend:
I contend that white people make up 75% of this country. That isn't racist, it's just fact. Why is it that people want an equal number of each color student when there aren't an equal number living in this country? There's a reason people who aren't white are called...wait for it...minorities.
Now, if enrollment was 99% white, 1% other, then you'd have a case. But in fact, minority enrollment at most colleges here in the U.S. is ABOVE national ratios of white to minority, across the board. I don't see some vast conspiracy in that, it's just the way things are. I don't think it's any more fair to allow a less qualified applicant in because they're NOT white than it is to deny a qualified applicant entrance because they aren't white. Race should NOT determine preference, of any kind. period. if you say that people should get better or worse treatment depending on what color their skin is, you are a racist and you are part of the problem. Why don't we focus *less* on what color people are and *more* on what they do as individuals?
Picking stuff up, carrying it around, and putting it down somewhere else (a lot) is a well recogized sign of a possible shoplifter... They'd probably be able to get the police to search you.
They could *maybe* get the police to *ask* you to empty your pockets, or at the very worst, they may give you a pat down. But they won't do anything more than that unless they find contraband. I've been accused of being a shoplifter many times because I am extremely picky and I change my mind a lot. Whenever it happens, I tell them to call the cops, and that I'll be filing a complaint against them when I am vindicated, which I know to be a certainty. Usually they drop it right there, and the one time they *did* call the cops on me, they gave me a gift cert for 50 bucks because I had nothing on me, just like I told them. Far from banning me from the store, they instead fell all over themselves apologizing. Your location may be different, but I *highly* doubt they would ban you from the store for *not* stealing. If they did, I would file a harassment charge against them, citing their false accusation and subsequent banning.
I've often wondered: on what grounds are they allowed to detain you?
They aren't. You can walk out the door and keep on going, and unless there's a cop handy you're off scott free. Of course, they don't want you to know this, so they will threaten you and may even grab you, at which point they have exceeded their legal rights and have committed assault. We always see on tv the heroic bystander tripping the fleeing pickpocket or purse-snatcher, but in reality people doing that could be arrested themselves for assault, excepting the one (or few, my memory is bad) place(s) here in the US where you are required by law to attempt to stop any non-violent crime. (a la the seinfeld series finale)
You're a moron. Seriously. Do you not understand the concept of SNL's 'commercials'? They aren't for real products that are currently out. If you comprehended the parent to your post, you would have noticed the line about the parody commercial appearing just after gillete released the Mach2, which indicates that the commercial was not for a current product. Are you stupid? Oh wait, you're posting on /., of course you are.
Then you won't object to the police RFID'ing all your posessions and putting CCD cameras with RFID readers in your home, car, office, etc. After all, that'd greatly reduce the chance of you stealing, and if you do, it'd catch you.
How exactly does one steal one's own possessions?
No, I don't count cheating on your taxes, either, although the gov't sure does think you're 'stealing' if you do that.
Don't have your Kroger card? Then be prepared to pay $6 for a 12-pack of Coke instead of $3.
Funny, that's what the convenience store close to my house charges, and they don't even offer me the option of a card to halve it. Unless I want to trek to the Super Walmart, I either pay the 6 bucks or don't have soda. There has to be more than one store in your town (or in a nearby town). Perhaps you should go to a different store. It's like my grandpappy always used to say: good, cheap, fast: pick two. If you want convenience, and you want not to be tracked, you pay more. Personally, I go to wallyworld when I have the time, pay cash, and get good prices with no discount card. When I'm in a hurry, I go to the corner store and they extract insane amounts of cash from me. However, at that point I'm paying for more than just soda, I'm paying for convenience. When the time comes that a store forces me to have some card with my real data connected to it just to go there, I'll stop shopping there forever, and you should too...but a discount card is nothing new and nothing nefarious. They just want to sell you something...like everyone else in the world.
"Life *is* pain, Highness. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."
That's a good idea, but they could fix it easily by dumping the photo record attached to the tag if it ti returned to the shelf. I'd bet the security system already does this. Try this scenario:
Or this alternate one:
Grab a mach3 pack off the shelf
Wander around the store, deftly inserting it on a shelf in a completely unrelated department
repeat
Remember: It isn't illegal to put things back in the wrong place, it's just (mildly) cruel to the poor drones working there.
If I knew where a store was in my area that did this, I would have a GREAT time blowing up furiously at them if they met me at the door/in the parking lot. I'd tell them to go ahead and call the cops, but that I'd sue them for harassment and discrimination when they found no razor blades on my person. I'd yell and scream and curse very loudly and just generally have a blast. I'd put in calls to the branch manager, regional manager...whoever I could get..assuming it's a chain store. Now, I realize that I'd never win any litigation, so I wouldn't actually file any....but it's always a nice threat. It also makes a nice impression to the other customers: "Hey, I didn't do anything and here you are harassing me! Hey other customers, watch out, if you don't look just like the manager, he'll call you a shoplifter! They don't like my kind around here! Watch your backs, they think you're all theives" etc etc. Now, would any of that accomplish anything? other than my own personal amusement, no. But it would be fun, and maybe after a few episodes of that they'd stop trusting their cameras so much.
Just make sure that you're ready to defend yourself in court. You'll need a lawyer to subpoena the video tapes and/or computer logs so that you can prove you put them back. If they're pissed enough they'll try to prosecute you even though they know you put them back.
Well, that's utter bullshit. They can not prosecute you. Businesses do not prosecute. They can press charges, but in this case, the police WOULD NOT PROSECUTE you. (and the law would be the entity prosecuting you, anyhow, not the store.)
In any case, taking items off the shelf and then replacing them is not a crime. You would only be prosecuted if you walked out of their store with their merchandise (and again, the store would not be prosecuting you, Johnny Law would). Since their camera records people taking blades off the shelf, I imagine it would record them putting them back as well. If they know you put them back, they'd be stupid to try having you prosecuted. You need no lawyer to subpoena anything (which they don't have the power to do anyway). You don't have to prove you put the razor blades back, they would have to prove you did not, which they would be unable to do. Were they to make the HUGE mistake of calling the police on you, the police would watch the tapes, and/or pat you down or ask you to empty your pockets. Then they would apologize to you and hopefully you'd file a complaint with the store's branch manager/regional manager. People seem to have this (perhaps tv-inspired) fantasy that businesses can prosecute you, for things that aren't crimes, simply because they are 'mad at you'. However, the only legal action a business can take against you directly is to sue you, and that would be patently ridiculous in this case.
Did you watch an episode of Ally McBeal to learn words like 'subpoena' and 'prosecute?' I ask because you should really learn what words mean before you use them.
What's funny is how you will see the blades on sale at Flea Markets.
Gee, and here I thought that flea markets somehow managed to get special deals on electronics and car stereo systems from the manufacturers! You mean the $45 27" Sony tv I saw at a flea market may have been stolen? Or the dvds for 2 bucks apiece? What a shame. I remember a time when flea markets weren't thought to be havens of stolen and unsafe goods...oh wait, no I don't.
But..uhm..yeah..maybe that's TMI.
Depends on what you're shaving.
Course, then you also get the real cheapy cheapy disposables which seem to be designed specifically to draw as much blood as possible.
That must be the kind Homer Simpson uses. Reference: the medical Marijuana episode. One of the funniest moments in a vast sea of funny moments.
Because the least common denominator has never been my thing. That's my whole point.
And I suppose that raising the lowest common demoninator has no value? I've never been one to try to *lower* standards to match the lowest common denominator, but raising the lowest common denominator has never been offensive to me.
It's dishonest of Microsoft to even use the word "security" to talk about their junk.
Dishonest? Come on. Just because you could write a program to break their security does not mean that it ISN'T security. Any lock can be picked or destroyed, does that mean that Master can't call their locks 'security?' Human guards can be killed or bribed, so it's dishonest to call night watchmen or private guards security? Your logic is absurd. Because most people 'see the same things' in ink blots does not mean that just anyone will be able to look at those same ink blots, deduce what words or phrases a particular person picked, determine whether they used first/last letter, two first letters, two last letters, last letter first word first letter last word, etc....then reconstruct their password. Yeah. Gaping hole, that. Much bigger problem than a post-it on the side of the monitor with a randomly generated 'secure' password written on it. You could also put the blots around the border of the login screen, but not number them. That way each person could also pick where in the circle/rectangle to start, and whether to go clockwise/counterclockwise. I don't see how that's less random than a spouse or pet name. Really, it's far more secure than you make it appear to be. They aren't going to just use only 10 total ink blots, you know. They also aren't trying to use the specific blots that give the specific responses they're looking for...Duh.
BTW, what's a 'gappeing' hole?
I've already written that trends found in inkblots already normalized would give good indications about answers to new inkblots along the same characteristics. Also, a decryption tool could easily check up the most common combinations for character input ( first-last, first-second, etc. ) without actually include them all, though it could be done as well. My point was that someone with Rorschach norms and minimal programming skills could come up with Rorschach "wordlists" pretty easily, and though it would be better protection than with a "birthday" password, the probabilities of cracking this kind of code are high enough for me to avoid this pseudo-random technique. Remembering a ( long enough ) random string is much safer than relying on processes being normalized for decades, but maybe it's asking too much effort here...
Hope you have fun with your inkblots, mate.
As I've said before, even if you use a brute-force attack on a 20 character password, it's still MORE SECURE than what MOST PEOPLE use. How is it that you don't understand this? Sure, perhaps YOU will just remember a randomly generated 40-character string including special symbols, but that doesn't mean a NORMAL person is going to. Also, many of us are forced by our jobs to change passwords every 30-45 days. Good luck rememorizing large strings in this environment. What this will do is keep more people (although not ALL people) from writing their passwords down, and will give a lot of people (although not ALL people) better passwords than they are currently using. Please tell me again why this is worse than using 'password' for your password. Also, I don't think anyone has said that you wouldn't be ABLE to enter numbers or special symbols as part of your password. If you WANT a stronger password, by all means use one. I just don't see how this would negatively affect anyone. You could have all 10 blots on the border of the normal login screen, whether winblowz or linsux. Only people who would otherwise use their pet's name or their birthday need USE them. Then you'd have to know in advance that they were using the inkblots to form their password before you could use your 'alphabetic chars only' brute force cracking program. In other words, it doesn't detract from security as much as you imply and it could be helpful to a large number of people. Why knock it, other than it's microshaft and you just gotta insult them...because we all know that prejudices are wrong but that doesn't stop most people from having them.
Combined with the fact that the cracker is dealing only with alphabetic characters, you end up with a highly structured system, with an obvious, and likely quite fruitful, means of attack.
You still haven't explained how this is LESS SECURE than using 'sex' or 'god' or 'password', which would fall to a dictionary attack looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before a randomly generated set of 20 characters. Nowhere did I, the article, or anyone else say that this method produced the best passwords ever, just that they're better than what most people use, without being totally randomly generated and thus likely to be written down. They're not going to use the *same* inkblots for everyone. How would you know *which* inkblots the person used? Even if you could see the ones they used, how do you know if they used a single word or a phrase to describe each one? How do you know which word or phrase they used? How would you know if they used the first/last letter, or two first letters, or the two last letters for each blot? How would you keep from getting the account locked? Even if you could just try every permutation of 20 characters (plus upperase variants) it's still MORE FUCKING SECURE than most people's passwords, and normal people can remember these passwords without writing them down. More secure does not equal 'invulnerable', but you act as though if it isn't perfect, it isn't worth anything at all. You are a dipshit.
He was responding to another poster, not on the article.
:) Don't worry, I can correct people all day and never break a sweat.
relax
Um. What he said was wrong. It was stupid. It doesn't matter if he was replying to someone else or not, he should have read the article. That's what these comments are supposed to be about. That's what is supposed to give them context. You are dumb.
As far as relaxing goes, I'm the chillest person there ever was. I don't have to be all up in arms to bust some pretender to intelligence. Just because I don't let shit slide doesn't mean I'm not relaxed.
What are you talking about? The whole point of the article was that you could remember passwords two characters at a time, when prompted with inkblots. I've seen this demonstrated... most of the people could come in two weeks later, and still be able to remember their password from the one-time demonstration.
Finally, someone who has a bit of uncommon sense.
Like people will really be more likely to write down passwords generated this way than they are to write down a randomly generated 16+ character password. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
This couldn't work for the following reasons:
...", but what they actually read is "blah blah blah pretty pictures blah blah blah click". Without the person administering the test standing behind them to explain what to do, most people would just glaze over, like they do whenever they are presented with instructions longer than 1 sentence.
I like how certain you are. Be strong. Don't allow for the possibility that you could be wrong!
1) People are lazy. They aren't going to look through ten inkblots and write down each one and then figure out the first and last letter of each. They are more likely to write their password down somewhere, or just click on the link that says "e-mail me a new password".
They are if they can't log on to do work until they do. Sure, perhaps they would just write it down, but they aren't neccessarily GOING to. I didn't see any mention of any 'email me a new password' link.
2) People are stupid. Normaly users would get a page saying "View each of these inkblots and write down
That's a very cynical view of life, pal. I find it extremely amusing how many times I see or hear someone say 'people are stupid', without realizing that to everyone else, *THEY* are 'people'. Very rarely do people think *THEY* are stupid. You apparently don't think *you* are stupid, even though you make definitive statements without the least shred of evidence (other than your own opinion) to back them up, however everyone *else* must be stupid since they are not the almighty YOU.
3) Did they have a control group that attempted to remember their "strong" password? They state that it is unusual for a user to remember a strong password after one day, but I wonder how unusual?
With all of the experiments in the field of memory that have already been done, why would they need to do this? Maybe you could have actually researched *before* you posted? Nah.
4) "... by the umpteenth time you've logged in, you've remembered these twenty characters". Wouldn't it just be simpler to make them type the 20 characters over and over again 15 times? Then they remember it anyway, and don't have to reverse engineer the whole process.
Try it yourself. Write a string of 20 random characters 15 times first thing in the morning, then put it away and don't think about it until the next morning. If you can successfully reconstruct that list, you have an above average memory. Many people find it helpful when trying to recall information to have a mnemonic device, which in this case would be the inkblots. Using randomly generated blots, this would present a password that is *MORE SECURE* than the average password. Simply by consisting of 20 characters it is already more secure than many people's passwords, and will be less likely to be written down than a string that is just handed to someone.
Since the Rorschach Test ( "what do these inkblots represent ?" ) has been used for decades, lots of norms have been collected, so there already are lists about the most popular answers. Even if these are new inkblots, the patterns found in general Rorschach norms can still apply. Way to go Microsoft, you've made a fool out of yourself again.
Yeah, because it would be impossible to generate a different set of ink blots every time you install/generate a new password. That would be SOOOOOOOOOOO technologically impossible! What were you thinking when you decided to post? Also, although people are SUGGESTED to use the first and last letter of the phrase *they* think of for each of FUCKING TEN DIFFERENT ink blots, they don't *have* to. They could decide to use the first two letters, or the last two. You're a fucking fool if you think this would be more easily cracked than someone's birthday, pet/spouse/child's name, or what's written on their deskplanner under they cryptic heading : pw.
Let's all rush to diss on microshaft so fast that we forget to *think*.
This is not a secure password.
I see. So you mean all someone has to do is get you to agree to a deep psychological examination, then get access to your computer and try several different combos of the first and last letters of 'the most likely words or phrases', keeping in mind that there are 10 different blots, and you'll never know if you guessed right about some but not others. Please explain to me how that is not as secure as people using their birthday or 'password' or 'god'.
You, sir, are a moron. The article didn't say it will be the most secure password ever, is specifically said that it will be a stronger password than most people use, and that people will be more likely to remember it without writing it on a post-it note 'hidden' by being stuck to the underside of a desk.
Of course, reading and comprehending the article before posting is anathema to most slashdot pseudo-intellectuals like you.
Only problem is, stuff would stick to this.
The plate covers my friend was telling me about appear 100% transparent to the naked eye. However, when one takes a picture of the plate (presumably at an angle) its blacked out.
Why not just slap a thin layer of jelly on, then attach a very very thin sheet of plastic, as available at any home depot or really, just about any hardware store, then tape with scotch tape. I doubt any type of covering over your license plate will be 100% transparent...that sounds like marketeering to me. probably won't be noticed at speed by busy cops who are doing other stuff, but then again plain old dirt will do the same job, and if some cop actually DOES care enough to pull you over for it, just wipe it off, then reapply later.
if done right (as in, not JUST on the plate but also on the surrounding vehicle) it can look accidental and not 'suspicious'.
or you could just steal new plates every week or so. junkyards are a great place for that, since the owners of those vehicles will not miss those plates. or you could have a rotating license plate like the Knight Industries Two Thousand, aka K.I.T.T. That car had it all.
You're probably confusing Arab/American Black culture with Islam
Nope. Baptism is not a 'sect', btw. You mean Baptist. There's a difference, just like there's a major freaking difference between Christianity and Islam. His name is Jesus Christ and in Islam, he is not the chosen prophet and the only son of God, but is instead merely a prohpet, as Isiah or Micah was. This difference is enough to explode your theory, twit. I stand by my analysis of you.
There are plenty of other things to which I could refer to expose the flaws in your premise, but there's no need.
Bit of a nostalgia kick that only the Japanese can appreciate
You're a dirty, dirty racist. Do you have a giant swastika tattooed on your forehead? I bet you wish you could have been Hitler's love-slave.