If this obviously broken 'cryptography solution' is so great, why isn't it applied in his wiki? - I quote from the top of the front page: "Alert! Due to spam, you have to log in to edit the wiki or create a problem ticket. The username is foo and the password is bar."
That's chapters 1 and 2 of "Strange Perversions in Authentication" covered right off the bat.
The first doesn't stop computers at all - last time I checked they were perfectly capable of digitally signing things - and the 'repeat attack' is laughable. The second only requires human input once, then the computer is off and running, which is very different to a CAPTCHA required for each action.
Someone seems to be confusing CAPTCHAs (distinguishing between man and machine) with half-baked authentication (trying but failing to verify identity).
Having the text colour virtually identical to the background on the blog was a nice touch though.
The AC has a point though. We have the option to turn off display of sigs so we don't have to read the amusing/informative stuff people like to tack on to the end of each message. "This guy" already has that same link in the header area of the message, so why does he need to deliberately bypass the 'no sigs' thing by pasting it again at the end of each and every message, day in day out?
Not that it's a big deal, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks "Oh no, not that freaks.spam guy again" several times a day.
Honestly, I'm not a Grammar Nazi, as you can probably tell from this sentence, but I am a budding Phrase Nazi and I have to point out that you wreak havoc, you don't wreck it.
They intend to persuade me to give them as much money as possible, via legal (or near enough, don't start!) means. I know who they are, where they live and what their motives are.
Any of the many people who could have tampered with that cracked XP might well intend to take as much money as possible out of my bank account as soon as I'm stupid enough to log in there using the machine I have given them ownership of.
Sorry I tripped off your anti-ms zealotry circuits - let me take Windows out of the equation: Would you use a linux distro downloaded from a torrent if you couldn't verify the authenticity of the file you'd downloaded? Of course not. You'd make sure you had a safe, real copy.
I suggest that for a popular musician, there is more than enough money in touring, etc to become very wealthy, and a semi-popular one could easily make a living. The only trouble is that doesn't leave anything for the record company execs to get rich on. The argument in the past of course has been that the record company is needed to promote, fund and make the artist popular in the first place. (An unpleasant side effect of this is that the same parasites get to choose what gets to be popular, or at least narrow the potential field down to a few favoured runners)
Most definitely NOT so any more, we're seeing examples already of musicians hitting the charts out of nowhere after building up large followings online. Sadly of course, they sign to the record companies along the way, but they could just as easily public domain* their recorded material and earn well from performing and appearing. In fact, since spreading their music is their key to success, I will replace "just as easily" with "really should" I see that as the way of the future - what we're witnessing now are the last frustrated kicks of a dying beast.
That's all very well, but how on earth would your guy on the bus trust his computer if it's running software that's been tampered with by some unknown shady character before he's even logged in for the first time?
I can patch/firewall/workaround security issues on a box that are down to the usual incompetence, but if a machine ever runs even the slightest amount of malicious code, it has to be wiped. I can't understand the logic in using a cracked OS you got from a torrent under any circumstances, even if you don't care about copyright.
I don't know if this is a side effect of all the Dr Who talk, but according to the fedex page your package travelled backwards and forwards in time frequently during the journey.
Slashdot Mirror
If this obviously broken 'cryptography solution' is so great, why isn't it applied in his wiki? - I quote from the top of the front page: "Alert! Due to spam, you have to log in to edit the wiki or create a problem ticket. The username is foo and the password is bar."
That's chapters 1 and 2 of "Strange Perversions in Authentication" covered right off the bat.
The first doesn't stop computers at all - last time I checked they were perfectly capable of digitally signing things - and the 'repeat attack' is laughable. The second only requires human input once, then the computer is off and running, which is very different to a CAPTCHA required for each action.
Someone seems to be confusing CAPTCHAs (distinguishing between man and machine) with half-baked authentication (trying but failing to verify identity).
Having the text colour virtually identical to the background on the blog was a nice touch though.
Why don't you have a look and see?
All the laptops I've used since 1999 have done exactly that - hibernation. It works very well for me. Startup time is around 5 seconds normally.
Let me appologise for my fellow Gentoo user who seems to need to grow up.
Oh dear. I feel the need to be gentlemanly and reciprocate.
I apologise for my fellow Windows users. I'm really sorry, words really aren't enough are they...
The AC has a point though. We have the option to turn off display of sigs so we don't have to read the amusing/informative stuff people like to tack on to the end of each message. "This guy" already has that same link in the header area of the message, so why does he need to deliberately bypass the 'no sigs' thing by pasting it again at the end of each and every message, day in day out?
Not that it's a big deal, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks "Oh no, not that freaks.spam guy again" several times a day.
[insert random irrelevant link here]
Honestly, I'm not a Grammar Nazi, as you can probably tell from this sentence, but I am a budding Phrase Nazi and I have to point out that you wreak havoc, you don't wreck it.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/reeking.html
They intend to persuade me to give them as much money as possible, via legal (or near enough, don't start!) means. I know who they are, where they live and what their motives are.
Any of the many people who could have tampered with that cracked XP might well intend to take as much money as possible out of my bank account as soon as I'm stupid enough to log in there using the machine I have given them ownership of.
Sorry I tripped off your anti-ms zealotry circuits - let me take Windows out of the equation: Would you use a linux distro downloaded from a torrent if you couldn't verify the authenticity of the file you'd downloaded? Of course not. You'd make sure you had a safe, real copy.
I couldn't agree more.
I suggest that for a popular musician, there is more than enough money in touring, etc to become very wealthy, and a semi-popular one could easily make a living. The only trouble is that doesn't leave anything for the record company execs to get rich on. The argument in the past of course has been that the record company is needed to promote, fund and make the artist popular in the first place. (An unpleasant side effect of this is that the same parasites get to choose what gets to be popular, or at least narrow the potential field down to a few favoured runners)
Most definitely NOT so any more, we're seeing examples already of musicians hitting the charts out of nowhere after building up large followings online. Sadly of course, they sign to the record companies along the way, but they could just as easily public domain* their recorded material and earn well from performing and appearing. In fact, since spreading their music is their key to success, I will replace "just as easily" with "really should" I see that as the way of the future - what we're witnessing now are the last frustrated kicks of a dying beast.
*sorry, yes, I know public domain is not a verb
That's all very well, but how on earth would your guy on the bus trust his computer if it's running software that's been tampered with by some unknown shady character before he's even logged in for the first time?
I can patch/firewall/workaround security issues on a box that are down to the usual incompetence, but if a machine ever runs even the slightest amount of malicious code, it has to be wiped. I can't understand the logic in using a cracked OS you got from a torrent under any circumstances, even if you don't care about copyright.
I don't know if this is a side effect of all the Dr Who talk, but according to the fedex page your package travelled backwards and forwards in time frequently during the journey.