Let the conspiracy theories flow! This should launch a record-breaking banner crop of conspiracy addicts and cranks from every basement in the country.
The "power elite" and their Agenda 21 plan overseen by the Illuminati, the Reptilians and Bigfoot, sponsored by George Soros and Saul Alinsky and the CIA/FBI/TSA in conjunction with the Hollywood leftists and the Bilderberg group, working hand-in-hand with the Chemtrail Society and the secret Progressive Cabal, using HAARP and MK ULTRA to convince Americans that everything is normal, nothing to see, move along citizen
Nobody talks about Majestic 12 anymore because the same (lizard) people are now running Agenda 21.
Oh, those few times a year my late aunt spent in the hospital, I got a ballpark figure on how much Medicare was billed each time - $50 to $100 thousand. So my aunt was costing the taxpayer anywhere from $250K to $400K - every year since her 80s. Almost 20 years of six figure medical bills.
Not seeking to discount the premise of your story but the figures you are looking at are works of fiction. What is billed != what is actually paid out.
Dial your freezer down an extra 1C. Have a smart plug that switches it off for up to 10 minutes on command, max once per hour. The food won't be affected.
In one corner we have the modern fridge with variable speed compressor and in the other a "smart plug".... My money is on the "smart plug" because it has the word smart in it.
I'm seriously asking here, because I don't understand the problem. It might be trivial to listen in on the text messages that are being sent and received by phones in your vicinity, but how is an attacker supposed to do that from, say, 2,000 miles away from where your phone is? Is the protocol really so broken that towers blast out every text message everywhere, and then rely on everyone's phones to ignore the ones they should not be listening to?
Your description is not far off. But for serious as you suggest it would still be useful if you take the vendors stated goals at face value.
The problem here is that vendors don't really give a shit about "enhancing" security they care about not being harassed constantly by customers contacting them and uttering those infamous words "I forgot my password". Managing password resets is costly with aggregate cost estimated to be in the billions / year.
What this means in the real world is rather than enhancing security the second factor is not additive.. It isn't what you know + what you have. It is what you know OR what you have.
Email has been used the same way for "verification" for decades... every system has an "I forgot" button you can press that enables you to reset your password or to send you an email with a verification code. Ditto for SMS.
Before you know it your email account gets hacked or you install an App and grant it permission to read/send SMS gets your identity uploads it to a criminal enterprise and your "2FA" buzzword laced second factor advertised as enhancing security becomes the reason you got owned.
There is no shortcut.. no quick fix... and no market based incentive for vendors to give a fuck.
Plans With Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations. Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee's security architecture. Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-based information sharing.
Oh look CISA slipped into an omnibus and now the empty rhetoric about sharing being "voluntary" are revealed for what they are.
So close and yet so far: your own comment explains that it was caused by third parties using excel... badly
I only care about results not excuses. If I see a pattern of bad data due to avoidable fast and loose type conversation when people use a certain tool I am going to recommend people not use that tool. I don't give a fuck what they did wrong or how someone chooses to characterize the mistake. The only thing I care about is outcomes.
No, it's because you're ignorant.
Your right everyone who makes these mistakes is ignorant. So now that we've established pervasive ignorance and blamed the user what good has come from this exercise?
Every spreadsheet has exactly the same problem. They are designed to work on numbers, first and foremost. If you want to work on text in them, you have to take additional steps.
My comments are not about spreadsheets themselves they are explicitly about interface between spreadsheets and external data. This is not about the value proposition of loose typing within a spreadsheet.
A frequent problem is people directly opening up CSV files and the like or cutting and pasting to excel rather than using the import tool. When you do this there are no questions asked and excel assumes whatever it feels like subject to it's own whacky interpretations. This could be avoided up front with better UX.
They could have, but then they could have easily got it wrong and made people angry in that way. Instead, they are being consistent, and always doing it the same way.
Statements that cannot be falsified convey no useful information.
Spreadsheets are very useful for doing the job they are meant to do. The problem here is users doing something stupid with a spreadsheet. They should be using a database.
Where are you getting information errors expressed by TFA stem from using spreadsheets for purposes they are not suited?
Type inference in excel has wasted countless hours of my time trying to make sense of corruption caused by third parties using excel. Has gotten to the point where we actively recommend people avoid excel when handling any data they care about. I do fault excel itself because these errors are pervasive. They could have better structured the data imports or made them less creative or asked users for more feedback or have the import do a pass over the entire datasets checking for outliers that may suggest a different type.
When a critical mass is "doing it wrong" becomes pointless and counterproductive in the real world to continue to point fingers at users. Tools are supposed to be useful and if they tend not to be then that's on them.
Why does loss of safe harbor even matter for an ISP? What law says losing it magically make one culpable for every byte sent over a network?
If transmission sent over the ISPs network makes them liable then why isn't the same applicable to their upstream? Why can't rightscorp go after Tier 1 ISPs for all the evil bytes transmitted over their networks?
You'll still see intrinsic difficulties that aren't there for V4. For example, if I set my AP wide open, you'll have all kinds of fun finding the 5 out of 4 billion addresses in my prefix that have anything on them.
There are some new problems that didn't exist before too. Using the example above one of them is now external actors spamming a/64 results in ND broadcast transmissions of router asking network if anyone matching spammers request is home. Given/64 is essentially infinite for purposes of response caching this can negatively affect available bandwidth between systems on switched networks and eat away at batteries of mobile devices connected via wireless Ethernet.
Either way, I'm waiting to hear about impending IPv6 exhaustion.
Your going to be waiting a while as just 1/8th of the total address space is currently in play. If things unexpectedly go off the rails there is opportunity for IANA to reign it in with policy changes for allocation from remaining 7/8's.
decide that giving out/56's to everyone calling themselves an ISP wasn't such a good idea
It's more like/32 or more... We pull a/56 from our ISP. A so-so rule of thumb for understanding allocation difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is every "ISP" is allocated IPv4 address space equivalent of a single IP address. On order of a billion ISP like allocations and your fucked assuming current policy is carried forward to remaining 7/8's... To put this into perspective globally there are currently only about 55k ASNs.
Given no IPv6 shortage and at least some limited benefit in reduced route disaggregation I favor the current policy. Also think sparse/64 allocations to each end user was a smart move because it significantly raise barrier to entry for those attempting scan/spam the entire allocated global space. Also tends to provide freedom to end users to attach whatever they want and maintain E2E across all systems without crappy hacks.
It's too easy to pick things that make no sense to you apart. I don't understand x, y and z and therefore I conclude in typical know it all academic think "This is ridiculous". The following is just conjecturbation and is likely to be totally wrong.
If your deriving a symmetric encryption key you never actually transmit perhaps some nerfing is intentional so the intended receiver has a prayer of expending energy to derive it. There could be a calculation embedding asymmetric keys is an unnecessary (attribution?) risk leaving crap like this where anyone with sufficient resources could plausibly decrypt a more appealing option.
The consequence of not using random IVs is situation dependent and can range from the safe default of very detrimental to beneficial given certain operating constraints.
Authentication is a double edged sword. If your adversaries don't know what key or data they are looking for providing a known authentication mechanism is an unnecessary gift.
1. Self driving cars for public use don't exist and I don't see this changing within the next 20 years. Effort required to sufficiently address long tail of operating conditions is greatly underappreciated.
2. Every sentence uttered about "clean energy" reflect lack of understanding by the author.
Quoting IEA EEMR 2014 "In 2011, energy savings from continued improvement in the energy efficiency of 11 IEA member countries equalled 1 337 million tonnes of oil-equivalent (Mtoe). This level exceeded the total final consumption (TFC) from any single fuel source in these countries, and was larger than the total 2011 TFC for the European Union from all energy sources combined. Energy efficiency savings in 11 IEA member countries were effectively displacing a continentâ(TM)s energy demand"
On clean energy it isn't production stupid it is storage an issue completely ignored by the author.
3. VR is a toy for playing games with some niche industry uses (training, simulation, design). This quote about sums it up "People sometimes think VR and AR will be used only for gaming, but over time they will be used for all sorts of activities. For example, weâ(TM)ll use them to manipulate 3-D objects"
I personally think VR as a toy can be a lot of fun which is great. To the extent it "transforms the world" will have more to do with technology addiction. (Like Facebook and cell phones)
4. Flying cars and back to the future quotes.. I'll leave this speak for itself.
5. I wish the author would have provided useful information and context to support "rapid advances" headline. Instead we got van gogh cats and something about Google saving energy.
6. Our first world bullshit is amazing. Here are some other quotes. "More people have a mobile phone than a toilet"... "Every 90 seconds a child dies from a water-related disease".
7. Why should the reader care? What benefit does the user derive?.. Oh fuck it... "Protocols are the plumbing of the internet" and "Cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies are changing this by providing a new business model for internet protocols".
8. God I hope so if people can't even learn shit over the Internet that would be really embarrassing.
There's value in having all your games on a single distribution platform
There is no value in the concept of a "distribution platforms" in the first place.
This is like everything sold at Walmart being exclusive to Walmart and requiring special Walmart branded electrical outlets to use the Toaster you just purchased.
and I'm already annoyed by having to put up with Origin and UPlay. Adding another crappy little distribution platform is not going to help anyone but maybe Facebook.
I think this is good. The more fragmentation the more people will get pissed off and insist thru their wallet enough is enough with the whole "distribution platform" BS... Store exclusivity and DRM locked to where you got shit is unacceptable to me no matter who is running the show.
Even worse, one of the more common warnings (the untrusted SSL certificate/issuer) has confused people even more into thinking that "red address bar means not secure and green lock means secure", when in fact your browser's trust of the certificate's issuer has exactly zero impact on how secure the connection is.
So umm... how else would one... you know....um...ah... be able to tell how secure the connection actually is? Are they supposed to guess? Check to see if the evil bit is set? What do you recommend?
Wake me up when there is an HMD available better than Rift or Vive.
Current reality 980ti burning 250 watts can barely run VR at a cringe worthy PPD. Self contained = watered down experience from decades past I have no interest in wasting my time with.
Have you? I hear it sucks and the fake youtube videos of what the product is like is basically false advertising that fails to accurately convey its abysmal FOV and equally craptastic 720p resolution.
and isn't nearly as susceptible to the "uncanny valley" problem.
What does this even mean? CG to HoloLense looks real when the same content on a flat display or VR creeps people out or otherwise looks fake?
Is this the same LinkedIn that created a MITM proxy to scrape whatever it pleases from everyone's emails and proceed to mercilessly spam anyone you've ever known to join their happy little cult?
This is the same company now trying to sue people for scraping data from a publically accessible site?
"the future of Skype is cloud-based" So it's client-server based?
Cloud is not a technical term. It describes no coherent system or network architecture.
All cloud means is you should expect to be mercilessly stalked and monetized while the voice of darth vader plays in a continuous loop "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further".
Everything advertised as "cloud based" works this way.
There must be a workable solution for people to exchange data amongst themselves without everything they do broadcast to every copyright shakedown company and LEA in the world.
It has always been universally understood those interested in obtaining or distributing "illicit" goods and services would be required to at least put some effort into concealing their activities, watching their backs and limiting trading networks to guard against having to suffer consequences.
Once shit like Napster started everyone who wanted to benefit from the underground got it without ever having to actually venture underground. Virtually no risk/input effort required commensurate with their illicit gains.
There are a number of political problems from illegitimacy generated by laws a critical mass of people both disagree with and routinely break to corporations having too much influence or effectively short circuiting matters in the governments domain. Yet my primary concern is the continual damage the type of very detailed and complete information about majority of illicit shit people are trading using bit torrent online is causing to the Internet.
If these SIGs can't see anything they not only can't enforce anything themselves they lose the ability to use insane treasure troves of data detailing vast majority of all P2P participants and exactly what they are doing to petition governments to fuck up the Internet even more.
That's apples to oranges. Unity is specifically tailored to game development.
What part of "but you do stand on the work of many people to get your 'one man game' done." is contingent upon "specifically tailored to game development"?
On top of the fact that it was subject to a SQL injection attack, the passwords were hashed with salted MD5. I feel like I'm reading a story from 10 years ago or something...
It doesn't to me. The last time I pointed out salting + hashing is more of a joke than a solution just a few months ago a number of people right here jumped on me. One actually went as far as posting what they claimed was the hash for their own password to prove a "point"... Life lock style.
Some portion of operators today in 2016 think one or more of the following:
1 - 1.2 of 1.54 million people whose passwords were successfully cracked "deserved" what they got for using "weak" passwords.
2 - Selection of hash algorithm (MD5) matters. Perhaps something more "secure" like SHA2 would have prevented this.
3 - Had only they used scrypt or similar amplification schemes this would have materially changed the equation.
The only effective way I'm aware of protect stored passwords is to employ a segregated secure low complexity authenticator that does nothing except check credentials.
Slashdot Mirror
Let the conspiracy theories flow! This should launch a record-breaking banner crop of conspiracy addicts and cranks from every basement in the country.
The "power elite" and their Agenda 21 plan overseen by the Illuminati, the Reptilians and Bigfoot, sponsored by George Soros and Saul Alinsky and the CIA/FBI/TSA in conjunction with the Hollywood leftists and the Bilderberg group, working hand-in-hand with the Chemtrail Society and the secret Progressive Cabal, using HAARP and MK ULTRA to convince Americans that everything is normal, nothing to see, move along citizen
Nobody talks about Majestic 12 anymore because the same (lizard) people are now running Agenda 21.
Oh, those few times a year my late aunt spent in the hospital, I got a ballpark figure on how much Medicare was billed each time - $50 to $100 thousand. So my aunt was costing the taxpayer anywhere from $250K to $400K - every year since her 80s. Almost 20 years of six figure medical bills.
Not seeking to discount the premise of your story but the figures you are looking at are works of fiction. What is billed != what is actually paid out.
Dial your freezer down an extra 1C. Have a smart plug that switches it off for up to 10 minutes on command, max once per hour. The food won't be affected.
In one corner we have the modern fridge with variable speed compressor and in the other a "smart plug".... My money is on the "smart plug" because it has the word smart in it.
I'm seriously asking here, because I don't understand the problem. It might be trivial to listen in on the text messages that are being sent and received by phones in your vicinity, but how is an attacker supposed to do that from, say, 2,000 miles away from where your phone is? Is the protocol really so broken that towers blast out every text message everywhere, and then rely on everyone's phones to ignore the ones they should not be listening to?
Your description is not far off. But for serious as you suggest it would still be useful if you take the vendors stated goals at face value.
The problem here is that vendors don't really give a shit about "enhancing" security they care about not being harassed constantly by customers contacting them and uttering those infamous words "I forgot my password". Managing password resets is costly with aggregate cost estimated to be in the billions / year.
What this means in the real world is rather than enhancing security the second factor is not additive.. It isn't what you know + what you have. It is what you know OR what you have.
Email has been used the same way for "verification" for decades... every system has an "I forgot" button you can press that enables you to reset your password or to send you an email with a verification code. Ditto for SMS.
Before you know it your email account gets hacked or you install an App and grant it permission to read/send SMS gets your identity uploads it to a criminal enterprise and your "2FA" buzzword laced second factor advertised as enhancing security becomes the reason you got owned.
There is no shortcut.. no quick fix... and no market based incentive for vendors to give a fuck.
Plans With Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations. Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee's security architecture. Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-based information sharing.
Oh look CISA slipped into an omnibus and now the empty rhetoric about sharing being "voluntary" are revealed for what they are.
No, no it hasn't
Yes it has.
So close and yet so far: your own comment explains that it was caused by third parties using excel... badly
I only care about results not excuses. If I see a pattern of bad data due to avoidable fast and loose type conversation when people use a certain tool I am going to recommend people not use that tool. I don't give a fuck what they did wrong or how someone chooses to characterize the mistake. The only thing I care about is outcomes.
No, it's because you're ignorant.
Your right everyone who makes these mistakes is ignorant. So now that we've established pervasive ignorance and blamed the user what good has come from this exercise?
Every spreadsheet has exactly the same problem. They are designed to work on numbers, first and foremost. If you want to work on text in them, you have to take additional steps.
My comments are not about spreadsheets themselves they are explicitly about interface between spreadsheets and external data. This is not about the value proposition of loose typing within a spreadsheet.
A frequent problem is people directly opening up CSV files and the like or cutting and pasting to excel rather than using the import tool. When you do this there are no questions asked and excel assumes whatever it feels like subject to it's own whacky interpretations. This could be avoided up front with better UX.
They could have, but then they could have easily got it wrong and made people angry in that way. Instead, they are being consistent, and always doing it the same way.
Statements that cannot be falsified convey no useful information.
Spreadsheets are very useful for doing the job they are meant to do. The problem here is users doing something stupid with a spreadsheet. They should be using a database.
Where are you getting information errors expressed by TFA stem from using spreadsheets for purposes they are not suited?
Type inference in excel has wasted countless hours of my time trying to make sense of corruption caused by third parties using excel. Has gotten to the point where we actively recommend people avoid excel when handling any data they care about. I do fault excel itself because these errors are pervasive. They could have better structured the data imports or made them less creative or asked users for more feedback or have the import do a pass over the entire datasets checking for outliers that may suggest a different type.
When a critical mass is "doing it wrong" becomes pointless and counterproductive in the real world to continue to point fingers at users. Tools are supposed to be useful and if they tend not to be then that's on them.
Why does loss of safe harbor even matter for an ISP? What law says losing it magically make one culpable for every byte sent over a network?
If transmission sent over the ISPs network makes them liable then why isn't the same applicable to their upstream? Why can't rightscorp go after Tier 1 ISPs for all the evil bytes transmitted over their networks?
Reminds me of the eye of Sauron which is fitting for a browser that's constantly calling home.
You'll still see intrinsic difficulties that aren't there for V4. For example, if I set my AP wide open, you'll have all kinds of fun finding the 5 out of 4 billion addresses in my prefix that have anything on them.
There are some new problems that didn't exist before too. Using the example above one of them is now external actors spamming a /64 results in ND broadcast transmissions of router asking network if anyone matching spammers request is home. Given /64 is essentially infinite for purposes of response caching this can negatively affect available bandwidth between systems on switched networks and eat away at batteries of mobile devices connected via wireless Ethernet.
Either way, I'm waiting to hear about impending IPv6 exhaustion.
Your going to be waiting a while as just 1/8th of the total address space is currently in play. If things unexpectedly go off the rails there is opportunity for IANA to reign it in with policy changes for allocation from remaining 7/8's.
decide that giving out /56's to everyone calling themselves an ISP wasn't such a good idea
It's more like /32 or more... We pull a /56 from our ISP. A so-so rule of thumb for understanding allocation difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is every "ISP" is allocated IPv4 address space equivalent of a single IP address. On order of a billion ISP like allocations and your fucked assuming current policy is carried forward to remaining 7/8's... To put this into perspective globally there are currently only about 55k ASNs.
Given no IPv6 shortage and at least some limited benefit in reduced route disaggregation I favor the current policy. Also think sparse /64 allocations to each end user was a smart move because it significantly raise barrier to entry for those attempting scan/spam the entire allocated global space. Also tends to provide freedom to end users to attach whatever they want and maintain E2E across all systems without crappy hacks.
Stop using Windows.
Why does softpedia link to everything except the source?
https://www.cs.uic.edu/~s/musi...
It's too easy to pick things that make no sense to you apart. I don't understand x, y and z and therefore I conclude in typical know it all academic think "This is ridiculous". The following is just conjecturbation and is likely to be totally wrong.
If your deriving a symmetric encryption key you never actually transmit perhaps some nerfing is intentional so the intended receiver has a prayer of expending energy to derive it. There could be a calculation embedding asymmetric keys is an unnecessary (attribution?) risk leaving crap like this where anyone with sufficient resources could plausibly decrypt a more appealing option.
The consequence of not using random IVs is situation dependent and can range from the safe default of very detrimental to beneficial given certain operating constraints.
Authentication is a double edged sword. If your adversaries don't know what key or data they are looking for providing a known authentication mechanism is an unnecessary gift.
1. Self driving cars for public use don't exist and I don't see this changing within the next 20 years. Effort required to sufficiently address long tail of operating conditions is greatly underappreciated.
2. Every sentence uttered about "clean energy" reflect lack of understanding by the author.
Quoting IEA EEMR 2014 "In 2011, energy savings from continued improvement in the energy efficiency of 11 IEA member countries equalled 1 337 million tonnes of oil-equivalent (Mtoe). This level exceeded the total final consumption (TFC) from any single fuel source in these countries, and was larger than the total 2011 TFC for the European Union from all energy sources combined. Energy efficiency savings in 11 IEA member countries were effectively displacing a continentâ(TM)s energy demand"
On clean energy it isn't production stupid it is storage an issue completely ignored by the author.
3. VR is a toy for playing games with some niche industry uses (training, simulation, design). This quote about sums it up "People sometimes think VR and AR will be used only for gaming, but over time they will be used for all sorts of activities. For example, weâ(TM)ll use them to manipulate 3-D objects"
I personally think VR as a toy can be a lot of fun which is great. To the extent it "transforms the world" will have more to do with technology addiction. (Like Facebook and cell phones)
4. Flying cars and back to the future quotes.. I'll leave this speak for itself.
5. I wish the author would have provided useful information and context to support "rapid advances" headline. Instead we got van gogh cats and something about Google saving energy.
6. Our first world bullshit is amazing. Here are some other quotes. "More people have a mobile phone than a toilet"... "Every 90 seconds a child dies from a water-related disease".
7. Why should the reader care? What benefit does the user derive? .. Oh fuck it... "Protocols are the plumbing of the internet" and "Cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies are changing this by providing a new business model for internet protocols".
8. God I hope so if people can't even learn shit over the Internet that would be really embarrassing.
There's value in having all your games on a single distribution platform
There is no value in the concept of a "distribution platforms" in the first place.
This is like everything sold at Walmart being exclusive to Walmart and requiring special Walmart branded electrical outlets to use the Toaster you just purchased.
and I'm already annoyed by having to put up with Origin and UPlay. Adding another crappy little distribution platform is not going to help anyone but maybe Facebook.
I think this is good. The more fragmentation the more people will get pissed off and insist thru their wallet enough is enough with the whole "distribution platform" BS... Store exclusivity and DRM locked to where you got shit is unacceptable to me no matter who is running the show.
Even worse, one of the more common warnings (the untrusted SSL certificate/issuer) has confused people even more into thinking that "red address bar means not secure and green lock means secure", when in fact your browser's trust of the certificate's issuer has exactly zero impact on how secure the connection is.
So umm... how else would one... you know....um...ah... be able to tell how secure the connection actually is? Are they supposed to guess? Check to see if the evil bit is set? What do you recommend?
Wake me up when there is an HMD available better than Rift or Vive.
Current reality 980ti burning 250 watts can barely run VR at a cringe worthy PPD. Self contained = watered down experience from decades past I have no interest in wasting my time with.
Have you even seen the HoloLens?
Have you? I hear it sucks and the fake youtube videos of what the product is like is basically false advertising that fails to accurately convey its abysmal FOV and equally craptastic 720p resolution.
and isn't nearly as susceptible to the "uncanny valley" problem.
What does this even mean? CG to HoloLense looks real when the same content on a flat display or VR creeps people out or otherwise looks fake?
Is this the same LinkedIn that created a MITM proxy to scrape whatever it pleases from everyone's emails and proceed to mercilessly spam anyone you've ever known to join their happy little cult?
This is the same company now trying to sue people for scraping data from a publically accessible site?
Off the deep end.
"the future of Skype is cloud-based"
So it's client-server based?
Cloud is not a technical term. It describes no coherent system or network architecture.
All cloud means is you should expect to be mercilessly stalked and monetized while the voice of darth vader plays in a continuous loop "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further".
Everything advertised as "cloud based" works this way.
There must be a workable solution for people to exchange data amongst themselves without everything they do broadcast to every copyright shakedown company and LEA in the world.
It has always been universally understood those interested in obtaining or distributing "illicit" goods and services would be required to at least put some effort into concealing their activities, watching their backs and limiting trading networks to guard against having to suffer consequences.
Once shit like Napster started everyone who wanted to benefit from the underground got it without ever having to actually venture underground. Virtually no risk/input effort required commensurate with their illicit gains.
There are a number of political problems from illegitimacy generated by laws a critical mass of people both disagree with and routinely break to corporations having too much influence or effectively short circuiting matters in the governments domain. Yet my primary concern is the continual damage the type of very detailed and complete information about majority of illicit shit people are trading using bit torrent online is causing to the Internet.
If these SIGs can't see anything they not only can't enforce anything themselves they lose the ability to use insane treasure troves of data detailing vast majority of all P2P participants and exactly what they are doing to petition governments to fuck up the Internet even more.
Do you actually take yourself seriously here?
No.
That's apples to oranges. Unity is specifically tailored to game development.
What part of "but you do stand on the work of many people to get your 'one man game' done." is contingent upon "specifically tailored to game development"?
I think you're forgetting Unity was made by a pretty substantial 'team' of people over the years.
Or that pretty substantial 'team' of people over the years who created integrated circuits to perform basic arithmetic?
On top of the fact that it was subject to a SQL injection attack, the passwords were hashed with salted MD5. I feel like I'm reading a story from 10 years ago or something...
It doesn't to me. The last time I pointed out salting + hashing is more of a joke than a solution just a few months ago a number of people right here jumped on me. One actually went as far as posting what they claimed was the hash for their own password to prove a "point"... Life lock style.
Some portion of operators today in 2016 think one or more of the following:
1 - 1.2 of 1.54 million people whose passwords were successfully cracked "deserved" what they got for using "weak" passwords.
2 - Selection of hash algorithm (MD5) matters. Perhaps something more "secure" like SHA2 would have prevented this.
3 - Had only they used scrypt or similar amplification schemes this would have materially changed the equation.
The only effective way I'm aware of protect stored passwords is to employ a segregated secure low complexity authenticator that does nothing except check credentials.