Parents use the Internet as a babysitting tool more often than not these days. Then when they find that little Johnny or Judy finds something inappropriate on the Internet they cry foul about it and say that it shouldn't be on the Internet for their kids to find thus punishing everyone else. Or they run to some filtering program to hopefully block the bad stuff and then the kid finds their way around it and then the parent has a fit about it.
How about actually being a parent? Sitting down with your child and help them use the Internet safely is far better than trying to either force the usage of filtering applications or ranting about why the content is there to begin with.
Is there a website that auto-generates these canned responses every time someone asks about appropriate use of the internet for kids? I'd much rather my 7yo worried about why their friends were mean to them today than the logistics of DP if such an image springs forth from the computer. If such an image did spring forth then I'd like to be around to answer any questions they might have, as awkward as they might be, but i'd still rather it didn't happen at all.
And what's this "punishing everyone else" crap? You'll still be able to find your porn, just not on the hypothetical 'google kids' website. If anything else it will help you find higher concentrations of porn elsewhere!
so all the research to the contrary is just a big conspiracy then?
and nicotine is more addictive than heroin
Lock a heroin addict in a padded cell and a heavy smoker in a padded cell, deny them their drug of choice, and see which one asks you to kill them first. I think you'd be a little surprised if you think nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
You have a bit of catching up to do before your exciting new word falls into anything close to common usage. Until then, everyone who uses it is a gashblanab.
My inbox has a few peaks in traffic depending on who's awake in what timezone, but the average busy time is roughly 2am-7pm monday-friday in my local timezone. If you find a quiet time to email me the chances are it's when i'm asleep or otherwise not at the computer. When I get back to the computer again i'll have your email + half a day's worth of other email waiting for me.
Just because you emailed me in a quiet time doesn't mean i'm attending to my email during that time (even if it happens to be in the middle of a sunday afternoon), and doesn't mean that when I get back to my email that yours won't be one of a thousand waiting for me.
To successfully negotiate the above would require the service knowing when i'm attending to my emails, not just when i'm receiving them. That's more information than I'd like to be known by some remote entity that has access to my mailbox.
Irregardless is not a word. You may have a point, but your use of a non-word makes me wonder.
If enough people use it and accept it as valid then it's a perfectly cromulent word, just like all the other words that weren't words 100 years ago. If you want a definition then this might assist you broadening your vocabulary (even though the entry itself state's that it isn't generally accepted as a word:)
No the parent poster was correct in his/her terminology. Encryption is what you use if you want to get the original data back again. Hashing is what you use when you only need to prove that the supplied information matches the original information. The latter is the best way to store passwords for user authentication. To be useful, you don't need to know what the original password was, you only need to know that the password the user supplied hashes to the same value as the stored hash.
If the company is storing passwords that need to be supplied to a third party then they would need to be stored encrypted so they could be decrypted back to the original value, but that's something different again.
Mostly agree. If there is a mechanism by which the bad guys can get your password hashes then you already have a problem.
It's a slightly bigger problem when the situation is something like the bad guys stealing (eg) Sony's encrypted[1] password database though. If everyone had 7 character passwords[2] and it took 24 hours for Sony to disclose the breach[3] and another 24 hours for users to get around to changing their passwords[4], that's enough time to crack around 150 passwords per GPU. I wonder though if you can exploit the fact that you have a list of (say) 1 million password hashes to speed up the search? with 1 million password hashes maybe some share the same salt[5]...
[1] ha! [2] i'd be assuming a minimum of 8 though... [3] yeah right [4] again... probably another invalid assumption [5] I'm thinking back to the days of/etc/password and crypt with a 2 character salt... maybe NTLM hashes have a much larger salt making collisions unlikely?
I sure hope their colleges take them out the back and beat the crap out of them (figuratively speaking;) for letting the team down. I normally think the police are fairly reasonable but if their mates stick up for them after pulling a stunt like this then they are just as bad.
...you let a perceived need dictate a use, not the other way around.
That's crazy talk! Every business needs a server. First he needs to put some XML on it, then once he has the XML working he can install a cloud (everyone is talking about cloud so it must be good!). Then sit back and watch the money roll in!
I'm sorry but if this is the case you have far bigger problems with your microwave then simply WiFi interference.
Does the interference really need to be of eyeball boiling strength to interfere with WiFi? If so then I think the WiFi signal is what you need to worry about.
Sure, some random asshole might do something unexpected in the traffic, maybe involving me in a serious accident, but even in that case I know I'd still have a slight chance of avoiding the situation if I'm alert and doing my best.
In that case the time between the "oh shit" and the "splat" would be seconds. My biggest fear in a plane crash isn't the dying itself, but the time between the "oh shit" and the "splat". Sure it could be just as quick as a car crash but there are a few famous cases where it wasn't.
I'm just slightly uncomfortable putting my life in the hands of other people to such a degree.
That's my hangup with driving. With flying, you are in the hands of people with an incredible amount of training and attention to detail, such that when something goes wrong it is investigated very thoroughly. In a car you are in the hands of anyone who knows enough to get a car moving... you are supposed to have a license to drive a car but surprisingly you can still put the key in and get the car moving without one.
I know I would if it gets me into any trouble ether with the law or a restaurant or store because I found out my card was not valid a little to late.
It's an offence in Australia to purchase goods (eg eat food in a restaurant or fill your car up with petrol) when you have or should have knowledge that you can't pay for it... I assume other countries have similar laws.
Not being aware that your card was just cancelled does not meet the above criteria though so I think you'd be safe from the law. The restaurant might be a little pissed, but i'm sure it wouldn't be the first time and they'd have a way of dealing with it (can you wash dishes?:)
CBA probably couldn't reveal the bank or retailer either, as they would probably end up fighting a defamation lawsuit.
Is speaking the truth not a defense against such lawsuits?
Depends on jurisdiction, but I think the truth is less relevant if the defamation was made maliciously . It could be that CBA noticed that the fraudulent activity was on cards which had previously been used at a common location (eg the merchant in question) and so it was only an alleged compromise at that merchant. It could also be that the merchant was a horse porn shop or something in which case they are also protecting their customers from having private information disclosed.
Slashdot Mirror
is either a moron or an Apple fanboy.
... but you repeat yourself
How many sharks with frikkin laser jokes will we get on this story?
Since the joke was made in the summary, I predict a total of zero further Shark jokes. I'm sure that Sea Bass jokes will be plentiful though.
Parents use the Internet as a babysitting tool more often than not these days. Then when they find that little Johnny or Judy finds something inappropriate on the Internet they cry foul about it and say that it shouldn't be on the Internet for their kids to find thus punishing everyone else. Or they run to some filtering program to hopefully block the bad stuff and then the kid finds their way around it and then the parent has a fit about it.
How about actually being a parent? Sitting down with your child and help them use the Internet safely is far better than trying to either force the usage of filtering applications or ranting about why the content is there to begin with.
Is there a website that auto-generates these canned responses every time someone asks about appropriate use of the internet for kids? I'd much rather my 7yo worried about why their friends were mean to them today than the logistics of DP if such an image springs forth from the computer. If such an image did spring forth then I'd like to be around to answer any questions they might have, as awkward as they might be, but i'd still rather it didn't happen at all.
And what's this "punishing everyone else" crap? You'll still be able to find your porn, just not on the hypothetical 'google kids' website. If anything else it will help you find higher concentrations of porn elsewhere!
all permutations on non used [a-zA-Z0-9]*Cloud.
There are some lawyers from !Clould, #Cloud, @Cloud, &Cloud, %Cloud, $Cloud, and [Cloud] here who would like a word...
Cocaine doesn't cause physiological dependence
so all the research to the contrary is just a big conspiracy then?
and nicotine is more addictive than heroin
Lock a heroin addict in a padded cell and a heavy smoker in a padded cell, deny them their drug of choice, and see which one asks you to kill them first. I think you'd be a little surprised if you think nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
Headshot!
Sometimes the best way to figure out if something is in common usage or not is to determine if it's in common usage or not...
Must be right
Yep. They're definitely all words in common usage.
irregardless About 1,390,000 results
gashblanab Your search - gashblanab - did not match any documents.
You have a bit of catching up to do before your exciting new word falls into anything close to common usage. Until then, everyone who uses it is a gashblanab.
My inbox has a few peaks in traffic depending on who's awake in what timezone, but the average busy time is roughly 2am-7pm monday-friday in my local timezone. If you find a quiet time to email me the chances are it's when i'm asleep or otherwise not at the computer. When I get back to the computer again i'll have your email + half a day's worth of other email waiting for me.
Just because you emailed me in a quiet time doesn't mean i'm attending to my email during that time (even if it happens to be in the middle of a sunday afternoon), and doesn't mean that when I get back to my email that yours won't be one of a thousand waiting for me.
To successfully negotiate the above would require the service knowing when i'm attending to my emails, not just when i'm receiving them. That's more information than I'd like to be known by some remote entity that has access to my mailbox.
irregardless of any other ire given
Irregardless is not a word. You may have a point, but your use of a non-word makes me wonder.
If enough people use it and accept it as valid then it's a perfectly cromulent word, just like all the other words that weren't words 100 years ago. If you want a definition then this might assist you broadening your vocabulary (even though the entry itself state's that it isn't generally accepted as a word :)
hashing != encryption
No the parent poster was correct in his/her terminology. Encryption is what you use if you want to get the original data back again. Hashing is what you use when you only need to prove that the supplied information matches the original information. The latter is the best way to store passwords for user authentication. To be useful, you don't need to know what the original password was, you only need to know that the password the user supplied hashes to the same value as the stored hash.
If the company is storing passwords that need to be supplied to a third party then they would need to be stored encrypted so they could be decrypted back to the original value, but that's something different again.
Mostly agree. If there is a mechanism by which the bad guys can get your password hashes then you already have a problem.
It's a slightly bigger problem when the situation is something like the bad guys stealing (eg) Sony's encrypted[1] password database though. If everyone had 7 character passwords[2] and it took 24 hours for Sony to disclose the breach[3] and another 24 hours for users to get around to changing their passwords[4], that's enough time to crack around 150 passwords per GPU. I wonder though if you can exploit the fact that you have a list of (say) 1 million password hashes to speed up the search? with 1 million password hashes maybe some share the same salt[5]...
[1] ha! /etc/password and crypt with a 2 character salt... maybe NTLM hashes have a much larger salt making collisions unlikely?
[2] i'd be assuming a minimum of 8 though...
[3] yeah right
[4] again... probably another invalid assumption
[5] I'm thinking back to the days of
It would be good, but what would be the reason for the descent of that colony to stop being immune to the previous drugs?
genetic bitrot
...and cops wonder why we hate them?
I sure hope their colleges take them out the back and beat the crap out of them (figuratively speaking ;) for letting the team down. I normally think the police are fairly reasonable but if their mates stick up for them after pulling a stunt like this then they are just as bad.
...you let a perceived need dictate a use, not the other way around.
That's crazy talk! Every business needs a server. First he needs to put some XML on it, then once he has the XML working he can install a cloud (everyone is talking about cloud so it must be good!). Then sit back and watch the money roll in!
Yeah. You'll never get FP that way!
I have a couple Rare Earth Magnets. They have a very strong magnetic pull. So I figure I'll just run them up and down my body. It could be fun.
Be careful you don't thin your blood too much. There should be a warning on such strong magnets!
First Post's cause cancer.
I'm sorry but if this is the case you have far bigger problems with your microwave then simply WiFi interference.
Does the interference really need to be of eyeball boiling strength to interfere with WiFi? If so then I think the WiFi signal is what you need to worry about.
Sure, some random asshole might do something unexpected in the traffic, maybe involving me in a serious accident, but even in that case I know I'd still have a slight chance of avoiding the situation if I'm alert and doing my best.
In that case the time between the "oh shit" and the "splat" would be seconds. My biggest fear in a plane crash isn't the dying itself, but the time between the "oh shit" and the "splat". Sure it could be just as quick as a car crash but there are a few famous cases where it wasn't.
I'm just slightly uncomfortable putting my life in the hands of other people to such a degree.
That's my hangup with driving. With flying, you are in the hands of people with an incredible amount of training and attention to detail, such that when something goes wrong it is investigated very thoroughly. In a car you are in the hands of anyone who knows enough to get a car moving... you are supposed to have a license to drive a car but surprisingly you can still put the key in and get the car moving without one.
I know I would if it gets me into any trouble ether with the law or a restaurant or store because I found out my card was not valid a little to late.
It's an offence in Australia to purchase goods (eg eat food in a restaurant or fill your car up with petrol) when you have or should have knowledge that you can't pay for it... I assume other countries have similar laws.
Not being aware that your card was just cancelled does not meet the above criteria though so I think you'd be safe from the law. The restaurant might be a little pissed, but i'm sure it wouldn't be the first time and they'd have a way of dealing with it (can you wash dishes? :)
CBA probably couldn't reveal the bank or retailer either, as they would probably end up fighting a defamation lawsuit.
Is speaking the truth not a defense against such lawsuits?
Depends on jurisdiction, but I think the truth is less relevant if the defamation was made maliciously . It could be that CBA noticed that the fraudulent activity was on cards which had previously been used at a common location (eg the merchant in question) and so it was only an alleged compromise at that merchant. It could also be that the merchant was a horse porn shop or something in which case they are also protecting their customers from having private information disclosed.
So who was the merchant? I'm not a CBA customer but if it was a merchant who had a breach, surely it isn't just CBA customers who were affected?
Goodness no. Do you know what happens to pedestrians out there? He's staying put in his basement playing flight simulators.
Basement? He'd better watch out for mold spores and radon then!