Password hashing let's you enter the same password for several sites, but changes it (i.e. hashes it) along with the domain name of different web sites - which means you are actually using a different password for every site
Furthermore, since the passwords are seemingly random characters (not words, or anything sensable) - they are generally quite strong.
"pwdhash" is the foremost system for doing this - there are several browser extensions and other tools for automating it
The Led Zeppelin I album art is clearly a dude with a huge erect shlong and a scraggily bush, as viewed from his left side. Why am I the only one to see that?!?
Wasn't even an effective IM to start...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I loved the idea and promise of Wave. I tried using it as a collaborative communication tool for my group - which was spread out across several buildings - and two continents.
The biggest problem was that it was more of a "message board" than an "instant messenger". The major failing was that it was indeed built into the web browser. It wasn't the type of IM that would give you a pop-up when someone said something. So for that, we used other IMs (Crappy Microsoft one, I think) - in my current company, we use Skype a lot.
No one had the discipline, temperate, or screen real estate to devote to wave - when what we really needed it for was occasional real-time
conversations with a large dispersed group.
The machines themselves are pretty simple - I believe they are like centrifuges that spin the mixture and separate the heavier water from the lighter oil. Not exactly rocket science there.
The problem is of course collecting the material to run through such a machine. If you wanted to clean a bucket of oily water - that's you solution. A spill at sea is different though. You obviously can't run the entire ocean through his machine - so it's a matter of collecting the right "parts" to do so.
This, of course, all comes back to skimming as the primary means to *collect* the oil to run through such a machine. I'm not an expert here - but I believe the oil company ships already have many ways of separating seawater from oil - as this is a part of their normal reclamation process.
So the value of these machines is somewhat limited - I guess the could be used in conjunction with skimmers, or in very isolated poluted "ponds", etc. The problem of course is that it all comes back to the tedious and laborious process of skimming the oily water.
If history has taught me anything - the answer is neither. It will be 10 years of wars involving patents and competing standards before either really emerges!
You could always just place the A-to-D box "upstream" of the TV set - several feet away - in a closet - wherever. It doesn't have to be right on the wall. Use the same Coaxial cable and splice the box in elsewhere. (I am assuming you don't have to change the channels often on these boxes.)
If several TVs are tuned into the same channel in a building, you could use one box at the point-of-ingest into the building.
Are they saying/implying that the "Instant" transmission breaks the rules of Relativity? (i.e. Faster than Light transmission?)
This would in one sense "break the laws of physics" - but as Quantum Physics and Relativity haven't been unified - one can't necessarily dictate what the other can or cannot do. Is there believe that this is possible?
Exactly my point. When Microsoft switched from being a technology driven innovator, to a P&L-centric adminisphere - Gates lost his interesting in participating.
While he doesn't "work there" - I believe he is still the Chairman of the Board.
That aside - I don't think Mircrosoft is doing poorly because "Gates doesn't work there anymore" - quite conversely - I always said that I believe that his departure deliberately coincided with Microsoft's decline. Wether you like them or not - he started Microsoft - created new products - built the company from the ground up - and grew it through the years. At some point - it really flatlined. They weren't doing anything new - creating anything new - growing - etc. As an entrepreneur myself - that would be the time an entrepreneur would get bored - with just running the day-to-day of a big company, and move on to new adventures.
As an avid Apple ][ user, I strongly disagree that the original Apple was useless without Visicalc. However, I do agree that these products' destinies can quickly change when they come across that "Killer App". So - you're agreeing that this technology is a solution in search of a problem?;-)
Literally everyone who has bought one bought it "sight-unseen" - seeing it only in Steve's presentation. So no - it's not that people loved it and news of that spread, encouraging people to buy it - it's all 100% early-adopters. It's too big to fit in my pocket, too heavy (and not easy-enough on the eyes) to really replace a Kindle, completely wrong for any real data-entry (no keyboard/on-screen keyboard). I honest-to-god haven't heard of what this thing is good at - or supposed to do, including from those who have bought it. I really like my iPhone, and I really like my laptop - but this thing fits into a void in the middle of the two - it's the worst of both, and I have yet to hear differently from anyone.
I don't know that you can say that Apple is doing it more "Successfully". The Newton sold like hotcakes when it first came out. Just because it got an initial rush of die-hard Apple fans and "early adopters" doesn't mean the product won't go the way of the Newton, too. I thing it's too early to call the iPad any kind of a success, just yet...
I would be interested to see the full text of the "study". Aside from complete bias of the entire realm of psychology, what about the simple things involved, like having to take your hands off the wheel to operate another device - or worse - your eyes off the road to read the text messages. No amount of "supertasking" can compensate for this, in situations which require split-second reaction times. The "reaction times" aren't merely "mental" - but involve seeing something happen, having your brain process it, and physically reacting to the situation. Having ones eyes off the roads for a fraction of a second could mean not even observing a situation happenging before it's too late.
As previously stated - there are exceptions, such as using USB - granted, all this is doing is putting the USB-to-Serial converter *inside* the piece of hardware - as your PC/laptop is treating it as such - and giving you "serial" access to the device.
As for the "greater" question, as will Ethernet/Network/Web interfaces ever surpass it - I will contend, the answer is no - or not any time vaugley soon.
I used to own a company that made NAS appliances - back many many years ago. When you had a "plug-and-play" device going onto a network, there were too many things that could go wrong. The question always came up: What happens if I plug the device in, and can't find it on the network? Sort answer was usualy: RMA. We started building a little LCD display console into our devices, which reduced the RMA rate to [near] zero. This wasn't even in cases where it was "our fault" - but even for stupid things, like the DHCP server was down, or address pool was exhausted, etc.
Many years later, weither I am plugging a terminal server, network power bar, switch, router, or even a laser printer onto the network - the same question comes up - what happens if you do eveything right (so you think) and the damn device doesn't show up? Maybe its because some a**hole got in there and set it to some bizarre static IP address - or whatever - how do you recover? You'll always need some sort of direct access in a time of despariation, and BTW, serial is a whole lot cheaper than an LCD display console.
I used Webintellects - for several years. One day they had a hardware failure which took down my server. When they restored it - their backup process was found to be...lacking. They could only restore my site from a ONE YEAR OLD backup!
Long story short - If the data is critical - trust no-one - use multiple different sources which you control for the data!
I think Steve's presentation said it all - not only was the on-screen keyboard too cumbersome for him to even type a small email message, but he lacked his usual cocky showmanship - he reminded me more of Balmer or someone - try to make a hard pitch for little things that weren't that impressive. You can tell when someone is trying to feign excitement.
I would say I was "let down" - I envisioned a "bigger iPhone", but was hoping to be wowed by some new, unexpected ingenious new Apple thing.
It kind of reminded me of the "eMate"....
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, since the passwords are seemingly random characters (not words, or anything sensable) - they are generally quite strong.
"pwdhash" is the foremost system for doing this - there are several browser extensions and other tools for automating it
See: http://cynix.org/tools/superpwdhash
The Led Zeppelin I album art is clearly a dude with a huge erect shlong and a scraggily bush, as viewed from his left side. Why am I the only one to see that?!?
The biggest problem was that it was more of a "message board" than an "instant messenger". The major failing was that it was indeed built into the web browser. It wasn't the type of IM that would give you a pop-up when someone said something. So for that, we used other IMs (Crappy Microsoft one, I think) - in my current company, we use Skype a lot.
No one had the discipline, temperate, or screen real estate to devote to wave - when what we really needed it for was occasional real-time conversations with a large dispersed group.
The problem is of course collecting the material to run through such a machine. If you wanted to clean a bucket of oily water - that's you solution. A spill at sea is different though. You obviously can't run the entire ocean through his machine - so it's a matter of collecting the right "parts" to do so.
This, of course, all comes back to skimming as the primary means to *collect* the oil to run through such a machine. I'm not an expert here - but I believe the oil company ships already have many ways of separating seawater from oil - as this is a part of their normal reclamation process.
So the value of these machines is somewhat limited - I guess the could be used in conjunction with skimmers, or in very isolated poluted "ponds", etc. The problem of course is that it all comes back to the tedious and laborious process of skimming the oily water.
If history has taught me anything - the answer is neither. It will be 10 years of wars involving patents and competing standards before either really emerges!
Didn't the "Notepad" "Desk Accessory" in the Original (old-school) MacOS do page-turn animation?
Last time we sent our customers a "flood of stable releases" we got an angry letter from them...something about Quality Control....
If several TVs are tuned into the same channel in a building, you could use one box at the point-of-ingest into the building.
...oh, like the antenna issue?!
Yea, but that's sort of like saying "Hookers take more Penicillin than Doctors do".
Adaptive bitrate streaming?
Sparse Caching in CDNs?
Standardization of Codecs - knowing that the browser that's play the video will have the codec you need?
Being able to fast-forward (think: Moneyshot) without downloading the whole video first?
HTML5 is a very weak video solution.
I thought BBC had already standardized on Bittorrent :-O
This would in one sense "break the laws of physics" - but as Quantum Physics and Relativity haven't been unified - one can't necessarily dictate what the other can or cannot do. Is there believe that this is possible?
"Anything goes, as long as it's funny" - Jim Dymek
Exactly my point. When Microsoft switched from being a technology driven innovator, to a P&L-centric adminisphere - Gates lost his interesting in participating.
That aside - I don't think Mircrosoft is doing poorly because "Gates doesn't work there anymore" - quite conversely - I always said that I believe that his departure deliberately coincided with Microsoft's decline. Wether you like them or not - he started Microsoft - created new products - built the company from the ground up - and grew it through the years. At some point - it really flatlined. They weren't doing anything new - creating anything new - growing - etc. As an entrepreneur myself - that would be the time an entrepreneur would get bored - with just running the day-to-day of a big company, and move on to new adventures.
Mod-up funny!!!
"I'll throw in my sense of decency for an extra $5 - It's a Bart sales bonanza, everything must go!"
As an avid Apple ][ user, I strongly disagree that the original Apple was useless without Visicalc. However, I do agree that these products' destinies can quickly change when they come across that "Killer App". So - you're agreeing that this technology is a solution in search of a problem?;-)
Literally everyone who has bought one bought it "sight-unseen" - seeing it only in Steve's presentation. So no - it's not that people loved it and news of that spread, encouraging people to buy it - it's all 100% early-adopters. It's too big to fit in my pocket, too heavy (and not easy-enough on the eyes) to really replace a Kindle, completely wrong for any real data-entry (no keyboard/on-screen keyboard). I honest-to-god haven't heard of what this thing is good at - or supposed to do, including from those who have bought it. I really like my iPhone, and I really like my laptop - but this thing fits into a void in the middle of the two - it's the worst of both, and I have yet to hear differently from anyone.
I don't know that you can say that Apple is doing it more "Successfully". The Newton sold like hotcakes when it first came out. Just because it got an initial rush of die-hard Apple fans and "early adopters" doesn't mean the product won't go the way of the Newton, too. I thing it's too early to call the iPad any kind of a success, just yet...
I would be interested to see the full text of the "study". Aside from complete bias of the entire realm of psychology, what about the simple things involved, like having to take your hands off the wheel to operate another device - or worse - your eyes off the road to read the text messages. No amount of "supertasking" can compensate for this, in situations which require split-second reaction times. The "reaction times" aren't merely "mental" - but involve seeing something happen, having your brain process it, and physically reacting to the situation. Having ones eyes off the roads for a fraction of a second could mean not even observing a situation happenging before it's too late.
As for the "greater" question, as will Ethernet/Network/Web interfaces ever surpass it - I will contend, the answer is no - or not any time vaugley soon.
I used to own a company that made NAS appliances - back many many years ago. When you had a "plug-and-play" device going onto a network, there were too many things that could go wrong. The question always came up: What happens if I plug the device in, and can't find it on the network? Sort answer was usualy: RMA. We started building a little LCD display console into our devices, which reduced the RMA rate to [near] zero. This wasn't even in cases where it was "our fault" - but even for stupid things, like the DHCP server was down, or address pool was exhausted, etc.
Many years later, weither I am plugging a terminal server, network power bar, switch, router, or even a laser printer onto the network - the same question comes up - what happens if you do eveything right (so you think) and the damn device doesn't show up? Maybe its because some a**hole got in there and set it to some bizarre static IP address - or whatever - how do you recover? You'll always need some sort of direct access in a time of despariation, and BTW, serial is a whole lot cheaper than an LCD display console.
Long story short - If the data is critical - trust no-one - use multiple different sources which you control for the data!
I think Steve's presentation said it all - not only was the on-screen keyboard too cumbersome for him to even type a small email message, but he lacked his usual cocky showmanship - he reminded me more of Balmer or someone - try to make a hard pitch for little things that weren't that impressive. You can tell when someone is trying to feign excitement. I would say I was "let down" - I envisioned a "bigger iPhone", but was hoping to be wowed by some new, unexpected ingenious new Apple thing. It kind of reminded me of the "eMate"....