How you test for a brute-force vector without conducting a full brute force attack:

Hey, United, I was able to try 10 user/PIN combinations within 30 seconds of each other and did not hit any timeout walls or seeming account blocks. I was also able to directly use my real account/PIN combination on the 11th attempt that I manually did 5 seconds later and was able to get full access to my account. You might want to take a look at this to make sure that on a proper brute-force scale you're not caught with your pants down.

I have an idea. How about you learn something before you talk out of your ass? Brute force has never, in the entire lifetime of the phrase, meant that you were pegging a server while you are trying every possibility for the password on an account. Hell, if I send a username and next-in-series password at a rate of one every 20 minutes, that's still classified as a brute force attack, and unless the server is really anemic, there's no chance in Hell that the server is going down. If I'm doing that same type of attack at a rate of 200 attempts per second, or even 2000 attempts per second, that's still not going to blip much on the server's CPU unless it's already bogged with another process, and those are STILL classed as brute force.

The type of attack you're looking for is Distributed Denial of Service, which isn't generally for breaking into accounts but taking the server down with an overwhelming number of requests or pings that the server doesn't have the resources to be able to respond to any further requests.

Apparently more than Christian Bale had. Dude seriously needed some Primatene Mist. Or at least a throat lozenge or something just to be able to understand his dialog.

Can't tell if you're willfully ignorant on this or just trolling.

Valve doesn't have a lot of games on Steam. 3rd Party development houses chose to use Steam as a Distribution/DRM platform. Valve has not one iota of power (yet) to dictate that games developed by 3rd parties must also have Linux Binaries. The only binaries that are in direct control of Valve are games that Valve has developed. This is not to say that at a point in the future where Valve believes that Steam as the sort of clout that all other developers cannot do without their service, Valve wouldn't make the terms that in order to make use of the Steam platform for their games, 3rd party devs must provide working Linux binaries as well.

To put it more accurately and succinctly, Valve cannot say "We, as developers, have a lot of games on Steam," since they only have direct claim to ~30 out of the "10,000". They can say, however "We, as a service, have hundreds of developers that use our platform to allow users to purchase thousands of their games (not Valve's games) through that platform." There's a league of difference between those two concepts of ownership over the binaries.

You seem to be confused between games that Valve created versus games created by other companies that use Valve's distribution service named Steam. There's only a small handful of games distributed through Steam that were actually developed by Valve themselves; almost 30 if you include comercial mods and expansions.

The ITU-R has outlined 5 methods for the future of UTC [acma.gov.au]. Methods A1, A2, B, C1, C2, D, and E are from various delegations of the international assembly, and they are in serious disagreement with each other.

So...when you graph the equation 5/x, where X hits zero a line is drawn horizontally and vertically with arrows indicating infinity in all directions, with the two curves shooting off the page of it at the positive and negative points where x no longer equals zero? Funny...I always thought that the 0 lines are completely devoid of any marks, specifically to denote that there is no defined value, infinity or otherwise.

Actually, in any possible case of x, the result is always both positive AND negative infinity...and it is also always neither. As I mentioned elsewhere, divide by zero is essentially quantum superposition at work. The denominator being zero means that there is no "observer" for the numerator to collapse into a definitive form...and therefore there is no possible way to define the entire equation. Undefined != infinity. Undefined == Undefinable.

So, practically speaking, if there are zero people to care about how many apples there are... who's there to define that there's 0 apples available?

As I stated elsewhere [paraphrased to give a bit more detail for a non-AC]:

[This example] isn't 0/0. It's 0/1, which is 0. The person identified by you has to exist in the equation to be able to process the division, so by default there is 1 person. If there were 0 people then a Schrödinger's Cat situation emerges. Quantum superposition states that if there is no one to observe that there are 0 apples...then there are infinite apples at the same time there are none. To put it more simply, there would be 0 people to even care how many freaking apples there are to be divided. Therefore 0/0 is undefined, and in programming should always throw an exception that can be handled gracefully (ask user to verify inputs, etc). Defaulting 0/0 to 0 in programming is a very dumb idea as it will create more problems than it solves.

Getting a job at McDonalds and expecting to live on it still means "Do I use my money to eat for a few days, refrigerate my food for a month, or drive to work this week?" It's only a little easier if you happen to live within walking distance. If you're lucky enough to get into Wal-Mart, you're faring a bit better. Everyone else: Target, BestBuy, RadioShack, Kroger, GameStop, MovieStop, Mama's Pizza to Go, PapaJohn's, Wendy's, BK, Old Navy, Michael's, McAllister's... go in and ask for an application, you leave with a web address to go to. Hell, even with Wal-Mart the app is still online only. They just provide a single kiosk to use in store if you needed that option.

Less than $50 at Goodwill or Salvation Army can get you a computer capable of getting online. Some of the local shops here will also sell used systems for $20-$40 with a guarantee to keep them running for up to a year... with payment plans offered to the really down and out that have to decide between a computer and groceries for a few days (been there, done that). This is done because unless you have an in at a local Mom & Pop shop the only way to get a job is to go to the Corporate website and fill out an application online, and then have a way to access your email during evening prime-time... because that's when a lot of these hiring managers send out their RFI emails to those who made it through the initial screening. And believe me, they watch the timestamps. They may not actually read the response emails until the morning, but if they see a response that's timestamped within 10 minutes of when they sent their e-mail out, that person gets a head start in the running.

Your principle isn't 0/0. It's 0/1, which is 0. You have to exist in the equation to be able to process the division, so by default there is 1 person. If there were 0 people then a Schrödinger's Cat situation emerges. Quantum supposition states that if there is no one to observe that there are 0 apples...then there are infinite apples at the same time there are none. Therefore 0/0 is undefined, and in programming should always throw an exception that can be handled gracefully (ask user to verify inputs, etc). Defaulting 0/0 to 0 in programming is a very dumb idea as it will create more problems than it solves.