Yeah... I don't know anyone who writes it down on a post-it next to their computer, but we do have a 90 day policy, and my password strategy is not quite what the GP described, but it's not too far off, either. That's the stupidity of just not allowing us to create a really great pass-phrase that would take years to break. That's all on top of two-factor authentication (RSA SecureID) when not signing in from our internal network.
The stupidity is that on systems that have multiple users, we have a shared account that we use - it's actually assigned to a large number of systems; these are not user's desktops, but graphics productions systems that any number of operators might use. The problem is that the IT department implemented this password policy without asking any departments about the effects, and after 90 days we were blocked from this account because none of the operators had the authority to change it, and if they did they'd lock out everyone else who didn't know it - many offices, or even buildings away. Moreover, none of us get the email from that account - which doesn't even really have email, so nobody got a warning the password was expiring. So we do live TV, and people couldn't log into the systems that generate the on screen graphics. Of course now that login is an exception, but it points out a problem with IT blindly creating a policy without input from the people it's affecting.
The other stupid thing is that our MS Office accounts are tied to our logins, and we can authorize up to 5 boxes. There are at least 100 production boxes, and we can't license them by box. We do a lot of daily production data in spreadsheets because it's easy for the user and easy to use as a data source.
In any event, the more passwords humans are required to remember, and the more complicated they are required to be, the less secure we're going to make things as people do skirt the guidelines to make them as easy to remember as possible - or they write them down, or whatever.
Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with the scheme the GP described (although I would make it more complex). If someone has to brute force decrypt it, it will still take just as long. With the special characters in there, it's highly unlikely someone could guess it. It's true that once they got it once, they'd be able to guess it correctly later on, but the idea is to make it hard to get even once.
I've noticed there are often items that are cheaper non-prime, but then you get the choice - you don't have to order prime, you can pay a little less to order from someone else - but then it's often not two day shipping. Often the non-prime price + shipping is about the same as prime. I've been a prime customer for some years now, and with as much as I order, it's certainly worth it. Plus we get some subscriptions now, like the specialty dog food we need to get, which makes it even cheaper. So yes, I start with Amazon, and only if I can't find what I want, or I do see shenanigans from the seller w.r.t. shipping and so forth, do I search elsewhere.
I wonder how these alternatives affect things in the future when they are done on such a massive scale they can actually replace fossil fuels. Enormous wind farms will have immediate effects on weather, possibly farther spread than you would think. Pretty much all energy on the face of the planet comes from the sun, which also affects weather patterns - wind, rain, everything - so what happens when mass areas are covered with solar panels. What's the environmental impact of altering ocean currents in an attempt to generate energy from them? Even fusion... what's the impact of pumping massive amounts of sea water through these systems? Wouldn't that eventually affect something? It seems like we can't win if we keep demanding more energy. At least the air will be cleaner, though.
Climate change has always been inevitable. I wish we'd stop conflating climate change with AGW Climate Change. Nobody denies the climate changes. I'm not sure that anybody actually still denies humankind has at least had an impact anymore, either, just the extent and what's the likelihood of actually being able to stop or slow it. We can't have a meaningful conversation about it when either "side" falls back to name-calling and yelling.
The same is true of atheism, though. And it's not just religion. The vegans that need to go on and on about it, for example. It's just a "I've discovered this thing that I like so everybody else should conform to it, too" mentality.
Advertising is a bad example. At it's core, advertising (like many aspects of many religions) is very beneficial - how else would you know about new goods and services? How else would you get "free" TV and "free" websites like slashdot? Unfortunately, a lot of aspects of advertising, like religion, have been abused to the point of being detrimental.
No, it's really not - because it's not someone spying on you to get secret information; 99% of the time it's some pervert trying to sneak a peak at your privates, and they will scan around looking for any computer they can connect to.
Except the parties don't "incorporate aspects of that third party into their base policy," they only say they will and then don't, with some lame explanation why... but they are still the major party that claims it supports that third party policy, so people vote for them anyway. I'm libertarian - people think republican party must be the party to vote for if you're libertarian (they falsely only look at certain economic issues), or you are effectively voting for democrats - but neither republicans nor democrats are libertarian in any way. The only difference is which of your liberties and freedoms they don't care about.
I understand we lag behind, but it's not a matter of lagging behind, it's at what rate we're increasing our speeds. They're talking about almost ten years from now and boasting about 100Mbs speeds, which is where a lot of people in the U.S. are already. You really think average speeds in 10 years won't be around Gbs speeds?
That's what we've learned, isn't it? Or are people's memories show short they don't remember. There are any number of poorly or vaguely written laws that lawmakers said would only be used for something in particular, but have been applied in any way possible since.
If you had the last life preserver, and they forcefully tried to take it, you'd be absolutely right - what I'm suggesting is that if they reached it first, you have no legal (or moral) right to kill that person to save yourself.
It's Nielsen's fault - they started including social media mentions to come up with an overall "presence" stat, so every network jumped on trying to get people to talk about their shows on social media - and what better enticement than to dangle the possibility of having your tweet actually shown on the air for your five seconds of fame?
I've never heard it phrased that way, but in the consumer world most people want new for the sake of new - they buy new phones with features they don't need, faster computers to waste more cpu cycles and power while tweeting and using facebook... even food that really can't be improved, like milk and other simple products get new labeling - they sometimes even make a big deal about it right on the label itself: "New look, same great taste!" Coca Cola tried to evolve and failed, but they have to keep changing something, so they keep relabeling and rebranding things. If they can't change the product, they change the can.
Yes, trust me, it's not lazy journalists, it's executives trying to increase ad revenue and making the journalists use social media on the air. Social media is now considered as part of Nielsen ratings, right or wrong (wrong, IMO); so broadcasters actively encourage people to tweet to their shows/networks. People wouldn't do it if there wasn't that itty-bitty, teeny-tiny chance that their tweet might make it on air, so they have to "reward" the tweeters by giving them their 5 seconds of fame. You thought the "bugs" (like network logos overlaying your favorite programs) were bad, now we have to have "#name-of-show" keep popping up on the screen, too.
I mentioned this in a post above, but one of the reasons you'll see viewer tweets, and I don't think I've ever seen viewer facebook posts, is exactly because the size allows someone to quickly and concisely state a thought; I work on TV graphics, and longer tweets would require smaller fonts and more air time - making them unlikely to be selected to be shown during our shows.
Having a small limit is what made it viable to start including people's tweets on television (I do graphics, sometimes involving social media, for live TV). I can tell you our social media people will probably be shying away from longer tweets to show on air... we would have to leave the graphic up far too long, and we'll have to rework our graphics that maximize the font size to make tweets more legible to be read in a short period of time - the font size will be smaller, it'll be harder to read in the 5 seconds or so the post is on air. On the other hand, I hate social media with a passion (not the concept, but the inevitable result), so it's all the same to me.
Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.
No, you're allowed to kill someone threatening your or another persons life, but you can't shoot someone for the last life preserver on the boat, or the last parachute on the plane.
I disagree - the earlier they release the recall announcement, the fewer the number of people would be able to claim damages, so it behooves the company AND the non-greedy, just-want-to-be-safe public that it be publicized earlier. In this particular case, I find it hard that someone who could afford a Galaxy Note 7, and actually lives in the modern world (Brooklyn... so more or less), would be over a week behind the news that the devices should be returned.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... I don't know anyone who writes it down on a post-it next to their computer, but we do have a 90 day policy, and my password strategy is not quite what the GP described, but it's not too far off, either. That's the stupidity of just not allowing us to create a really great pass-phrase that would take years to break. That's all on top of two-factor authentication (RSA SecureID) when not signing in from our internal network.
The stupidity is that on systems that have multiple users, we have a shared account that we use - it's actually assigned to a large number of systems; these are not user's desktops, but graphics productions systems that any number of operators might use. The problem is that the IT department implemented this password policy without asking any departments about the effects, and after 90 days we were blocked from this account because none of the operators had the authority to change it, and if they did they'd lock out everyone else who didn't know it - many offices, or even buildings away. Moreover, none of us get the email from that account - which doesn't even really have email, so nobody got a warning the password was expiring. So we do live TV, and people couldn't log into the systems that generate the on screen graphics. Of course now that login is an exception, but it points out a problem with IT blindly creating a policy without input from the people it's affecting.
The other stupid thing is that our MS Office accounts are tied to our logins, and we can authorize up to 5 boxes. There are at least 100 production boxes, and we can't license them by box. We do a lot of daily production data in spreadsheets because it's easy for the user and easy to use as a data source.
In any event, the more passwords humans are required to remember, and the more complicated they are required to be, the less secure we're going to make things as people do skirt the guidelines to make them as easy to remember as possible - or they write them down, or whatever.
Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with the scheme the GP described (although I would make it more complex). If someone has to brute force decrypt it, it will still take just as long. With the special characters in there, it's highly unlikely someone could guess it. It's true that once they got it once, they'd be able to guess it correctly later on, but the idea is to make it hard to get even once.
I've noticed there are often items that are cheaper non-prime, but then you get the choice - you don't have to order prime, you can pay a little less to order from someone else - but then it's often not two day shipping. Often the non-prime price + shipping is about the same as prime. I've been a prime customer for some years now, and with as much as I order, it's certainly worth it. Plus we get some subscriptions now, like the specialty dog food we need to get, which makes it even cheaper. So yes, I start with Amazon, and only if I can't find what I want, or I do see shenanigans from the seller w.r.t. shipping and so forth, do I search elsewhere.
When it takes out targets in Washington, D.C., they can say "it was just a happy circumstance."
They only export that stuff to the U.S., the stuff they keep for themselves is fine.
Yes. Damn global warming, and damn OPEC. Every time oil prices go up, so does the price of LEGO.
I wonder how these alternatives affect things in the future when they are done on such a massive scale they can actually replace fossil fuels. Enormous wind farms will have immediate effects on weather, possibly farther spread than you would think. Pretty much all energy on the face of the planet comes from the sun, which also affects weather patterns - wind, rain, everything - so what happens when mass areas are covered with solar panels. What's the environmental impact of altering ocean currents in an attempt to generate energy from them? Even fusion... what's the impact of pumping massive amounts of sea water through these systems? Wouldn't that eventually affect something? It seems like we can't win if we keep demanding more energy. At least the air will be cleaner, though.
Climate change has always been inevitable. I wish we'd stop conflating climate change with AGW Climate Change. Nobody denies the climate changes. I'm not sure that anybody actually still denies humankind has at least had an impact anymore, either, just the extent and what's the likelihood of actually being able to stop or slow it. We can't have a meaningful conversation about it when either "side" falls back to name-calling and yelling.
+1 (If I hadn't already commented). Vocal minorities tend to ruin a lot of things.
The same is true of atheism, though. And it's not just religion. The vegans that need to go on and on about it, for example. It's just a "I've discovered this thing that I like so everybody else should conform to it, too" mentality.
Advertising is a bad example. At it's core, advertising (like many aspects of many religions) is very beneficial - how else would you know about new goods and services? How else would you get "free" TV and "free" websites like slashdot? Unfortunately, a lot of aspects of advertising, like religion, have been abused to the point of being detrimental.
No, it's really not - because it's not someone spying on you to get secret information; 99% of the time it's some pervert trying to sneak a peak at your privates, and they will scan around looking for any computer they can connect to.
Except the parties don't "incorporate aspects of that third party into their base policy," they only say they will and then don't, with some lame explanation why... but they are still the major party that claims it supports that third party policy, so people vote for them anyway. I'm libertarian - people think republican party must be the party to vote for if you're libertarian (they falsely only look at certain economic issues), or you are effectively voting for democrats - but neither republicans nor democrats are libertarian in any way. The only difference is which of your liberties and freedoms they don't care about.
I understand we lag behind, but it's not a matter of lagging behind, it's at what rate we're increasing our speeds. They're talking about almost ten years from now and boasting about 100Mbs speeds, which is where a lot of people in the U.S. are already. You really think average speeds in 10 years won't be around Gbs speeds?
That's what we've learned, isn't it? Or are people's memories show short they don't remember. There are any number of poorly or vaguely written laws that lawmakers said would only be used for something in particular, but have been applied in any way possible since.
90% of the U.S. will likely have > 1000Mbps by 2025, so most of us will be 10x ahead.
If you had the last life preserver, and they forcefully tried to take it, you'd be absolutely right - what I'm suggesting is that if they reached it first, you have no legal (or moral) right to kill that person to save yourself.
It's Nielsen's fault - they started including social media mentions to come up with an overall "presence" stat, so every network jumped on trying to get people to talk about their shows on social media - and what better enticement than to dangle the possibility of having your tweet actually shown on the air for your five seconds of fame?
I've never heard it phrased that way, but in the consumer world most people want new for the sake of new - they buy new phones with features they don't need, faster computers to waste more cpu cycles and power while tweeting and using facebook... even food that really can't be improved, like milk and other simple products get new labeling - they sometimes even make a big deal about it right on the label itself: "New look, same great taste!" Coca Cola tried to evolve and failed, but they have to keep changing something, so they keep relabeling and rebranding things. If they can't change the product, they change the can.
Yes, trust me, it's not lazy journalists, it's executives trying to increase ad revenue and making the journalists use social media on the air. Social media is now considered as part of Nielsen ratings, right or wrong (wrong, IMO); so broadcasters actively encourage people to tweet to their shows/networks. People wouldn't do it if there wasn't that itty-bitty, teeny-tiny chance that their tweet might make it on air, so they have to "reward" the tweeters by giving them their 5 seconds of fame. You thought the "bugs" (like network logos overlaying your favorite programs) were bad, now we have to have "#name-of-show" keep popping up on the screen, too.
I mentioned this in a post above, but one of the reasons you'll see viewer tweets, and I don't think I've ever seen viewer facebook posts, is exactly because the size allows someone to quickly and concisely state a thought; I work on TV graphics, and longer tweets would require smaller fonts and more air time - making them unlikely to be selected to be shown during our shows.
Having a small limit is what made it viable to start including people's tweets on television (I do graphics, sometimes involving social media, for live TV). I can tell you our social media people will probably be shying away from longer tweets to show on air... we would have to leave the graphic up far too long, and we'll have to rework our graphics that maximize the font size to make tweets more legible to be read in a short period of time - the font size will be smaller, it'll be harder to read in the 5 seconds or so the post is on air. On the other hand, I hate social media with a passion (not the concept, but the inevitable result), so it's all the same to me.
If you run faster and get the last [life preserver | parachute], then it's just good old survival of the fittest.
How is it a catch-22? You want to watch it; the price they're asking is either worth it to your or not.
Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.
No, you're allowed to kill someone threatening your or another persons life, but you can't shoot someone for the last life preserver on the boat, or the last parachute on the plane.
I disagree - the earlier they release the recall announcement, the fewer the number of people would be able to claim damages, so it behooves the company AND the non-greedy, just-want-to-be-safe public that it be publicized earlier. In this particular case, I find it hard that someone who could afford a Galaxy Note 7, and actually lives in the modern world (Brooklyn... so more or less), would be over a week behind the news that the devices should be returned.