The fact that accounts could be linked to a battle.net account without providing anything other than the username and password was stupid.
The fact that after making battle.net mandatory, battle.net accounts could be linked to an authenticator in exactly the same way is completely moronic.
You need a TON more info to get back control of your account (CD keys etc.) than to steal one in the first place. Why not require the CD key to add to battle.net/authenticator in the first place? People who willingly give that out anywhere else but to Blizzard themselves deserve what they get.
Send confirmation emails to add to battle.net/authenticator. Send confirmation emails to change your registered email address. Force a call to the CS call center if you have no access to your email. Keep logs of the IPs that have connected to an account, use those to get a rough idea of where in the world people are connecting from, then use that to confirm if it's the actual account owner who's on right now. Etc., etc.
THIS is forcing the people who actually KNOW how not to get hacked to pay for the stupidity of little children who go "OMG, Blzzrx is giving me a free mount for no reason whatsoever!!1!!!1!" I'm sorry, but that's just as stupid as any previous attempt at security.
I buy the game at retail price, the same price I'd pay for any other game I'd want to play.
Then I have to buy the expansion packs at retail price, the same price I'd pay for an expansion to most other games.
Then I have to pay a monthly fee to actually PLAY the game I paid for.
And NOW I have to spend even MORE money to buy some device to keep my account secure because Blizzard has no clue how to keep accounts secure from hackers.
Excuse me, but NO. There is absolutely no reason I should pay for a company's inability to keep out people with no life. No pun intended about WoW players.
Even if you lessen a CPU with a 15 year lifespan by 30% by keeping it running, do you really think you're going to be using a 10.5 year old computer? In this day and age it's possible but highly unlikely
This is a public school we're talking about. I'd say it's actually quite LIKELY that they'd use a computer for as long as was physically possible, usefulness be damned.
And so the only people encrypting their email will be people with something to hide, so encryption is an instant "Get picked up by a black donkey" card.
"Just a few days after this Slashdot article, South Africa's largest telecoms provider, Telkom (which has been taking flak for years for its shoddy and overpriced service), is being pitted against a homing pigeon to see which can deliver 4GB of call centre data logs quickest over a distance of around 80km (50 miles). According to the official website, the race is set to take place September 10."
What if he had a repository of F/OSS programs he uses every day, which is what he copied over - without considering that he'd dumped a couple of the company's programs there, too?
I know I have an Install folder sitting nicely on my desktop; it's got the latest drivers for my hardware, along with install files for stuff like Spybot, AdAware, Avast, and anything else I'd need to start over from scratch without having to go through tons of websites and a probably outdated list of what I was using.
Well good for you. I've had an entire HD decide that moving files to another drive, while deleting other files, meant that I wanted the entire filesystem hosed.
That might work here in our peaceful countries, where you can argue that most encrypted traffic is (probably) legal.
In Iran, they'd simply set the filter to auto-block anything that looks encrypted, and log originating IP. Encryption would be self-incrimination in those circumstances.
I came up with a possibly workable solution to what damages should be paid for distributing.
Figure out how many times the song has been downloaded, divide by how many people are offering it for download on pirate networks, multiply that result by the iTunes cost of 99 cents, multiply THAT by three for the tort as mentioned in the GP, and voilá.
Why this weird math?
It's simple. As it stands, millions of people are sharing the same songs. Why should ONE person pay for the 'damages' caused by millions who they have no contact with or knowledge of whatsoever? If five people commit a bank robbery, but you only ever catch one of them, does he go to jail for all five? No, of course not, and so downloaders and uploaders shouldn't be made to pay for what other downloaders and uploaders do, either.
But what about the kid who wants to learn MORE, but lives in the slum with no computer at home and maybe even parents who calls him a sissy for going to the library? Should he be denied access to seeking information on the internet (which WAS the original intent of the damned thing when it went public), just because there's content out there that can be offensive?
The trick isn't blocking or poking holes, it's getting rid of the puritanical group-think and teaching the kids critical thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that accounts could be linked to a battle.net account without providing anything other than the username and password was stupid.
The fact that after making battle.net mandatory, battle.net accounts could be linked to an authenticator in exactly the same way is completely moronic.
You need a TON more info to get back control of your account (CD keys etc.) than to steal one in the first place. Why not require the CD key to add to battle.net/authenticator in the first place? People who willingly give that out anywhere else but to Blizzard themselves deserve what they get.
Send confirmation emails to add to battle.net/authenticator. Send confirmation emails to change your registered email address. Force a call to the CS call center if you have no access to your email. Keep logs of the IPs that have connected to an account, use those to get a rough idea of where in the world people are connecting from, then use that to confirm if it's the actual account owner who's on right now. Etc., etc.
THIS is forcing the people who actually KNOW how not to get hacked to pay for the stupidity of little children who go "OMG, Blzzrx is giving me a free mount for no reason whatsoever!!1!!!1!" I'm sorry, but that's just as stupid as any previous attempt at security.
Okay, let me get this straight.
I buy the game at retail price, the same price I'd pay for any other game I'd want to play.
Then I have to buy the expansion packs at retail price, the same price I'd pay for an expansion to most other games.
Then I have to pay a monthly fee to actually PLAY the game I paid for.
And NOW I have to spend even MORE money to buy some device to keep my account secure because Blizzard has no clue how to keep accounts secure from hackers.
Excuse me, but NO. There is absolutely no reason I should pay for a company's inability to keep out people with no life. No pun intended about WoW players.
You mean they're not a pain in the ass NOW?
So if you take her virginity first, THEN kill her, you get points?
And how, exactly, are you going to whitelist software?
Let's say you're making a fun little game in C++, but you can't test it on a protected system because it's not in the whitelist.
And what's to say that it won't cost money to be added to the whitelist? Goodbye F/OSS.
I'm pretty sure none of the Wall Street vultures have EVER entered a state called 'competence'.
Even if you lessen a CPU with a 15 year lifespan by 30% by keeping it running, do you really think you're going to be using a 10.5 year old computer? In this day and age it's possible but highly unlikely
This is a public school we're talking about. I'd say it's actually quite LIKELY that they'd use a computer for as long as was physically possible, usefulness be damned.
And so the only people encrypting their email will be people with something to hide, so encryption is an instant "Get picked up by a black donkey" card.
If the children are secretly raping themselves, let's immediately put them in jail for raping children!
I disagree.
32th?
From the /. article also linked in the summary:
"Just a few days after this Slashdot article, South Africa's largest telecoms provider, Telkom (which has been taking flak for years for its shoddy and overpriced service), is being pitted against a homing pigeon to see which can deliver 4GB of call centre data logs quickest over a distance of around 80km (50 miles). According to the official website, the race is set to take place September 10."
What if he had a repository of F/OSS programs he uses every day, which is what he copied over - without considering that he'd dumped a couple of the company's programs there, too?
I know I have an Install folder sitting nicely on my desktop; it's got the latest drivers for my hardware, along with install files for stuff like Spybot, AdAware, Avast, and anything else I'd need to start over from scratch without having to go through tons of websites and a probably outdated list of what I was using.
I think you just got modded +5, Can't be said often enough.
So it's a perpetual motion machine?
I -knew- this sounded too good to be true.
Well good for you. I've had an entire HD decide that moving files to another drive, while deleting other files, meant that I wanted the entire filesystem hosed.
So to stop a DDoS attack on a server, they remove any and all access to that server?
Am I the only one seeing the irony here?
New?
The cats were worshiped as gods in ancient Egypt. They never STOPPED being our overlords.
Buh-bye, then.
That might work here in our peaceful countries, where you can argue that most encrypted traffic is (probably) legal.
In Iran, they'd simply set the filter to auto-block anything that looks encrypted, and log originating IP. Encryption would be self-incrimination in those circumstances.
Would there be anything wrong in citing both?
In your example, "Original proof by Whoever McSomeone, www.math.com, found through summary on Wikipedia".
Is there anything wrong in that approach?
I came up with a possibly workable solution to what damages should be paid for distributing.
Figure out how many times the song has been downloaded, divide by how many people are offering it for download on pirate networks, multiply that result by the iTunes cost of 99 cents, multiply THAT by three for the tort as mentioned in the GP, and voilá.
Why this weird math?
It's simple. As it stands, millions of people are sharing the same songs. Why should ONE person pay for the 'damages' caused by millions who they have no contact with or knowledge of whatsoever? If five people commit a bank robbery, but you only ever catch one of them, does he go to jail for all five? No, of course not, and so downloaders and uploaders shouldn't be made to pay for what other downloaders and uploaders do, either.
Off the top of my head, I'd say it's to make sure they get to see ALL friends-locked posts.
But what about the kid who wants to learn MORE, but lives in the slum with no computer at home and maybe even parents who calls him a sissy for going to the library? Should he be denied access to seeking information on the internet (which WAS the original intent of the damned thing when it went public), just because there's content out there that can be offensive? The trick isn't blocking or poking holes, it's getting rid of the puritanical group-think and teaching the kids critical thinking.
WTF does it matter what the police thinks if I'm not doing anything illegal?