Worth adding is that the answers to someone's "security" questions often are easily obtained with just a small bit of social engineering.

Yep. Even easier if the information ("correct" answers) are available via Google.

But also, since you're already using unique passwords ... and the crackers managed to get your password ... how did they do that and would that have also yielded your "security" answers.

Their thinking seems to be:

1. So, one username / password isn't enough.

2. A second password should be enough, but it will use the same username as in #1.

3. And that second password should be SUGGESTED to be based upon something that can be researched / socially engineered / tricked out of the person.

4. And entered using the same channel as #1.

Okay, if you cannot get two factor authentication then at least use a different email address for each bank AND ONLY FOR THAT BANK. Email addresses are free. And always use completely unique passwords. Not bankname1 and bankname2.

The same for the "security" questions. Always completely unique.

If you have to write them down, do so. Just keep the paper in a secure location. It's far less likely that someone will break into your house to look for passwords than it is that someone will crack your computer.

I was just being mischievous. I think the editors are... adequate.

Robin Miller: One thing that I think my wife and I are doing right: we don't have a bank anymore, we have a credit union, a local credit union and they do use secondary authorization on everything, you have to not just know the account number and the password, but you also need to know the answers to fairly obscure questions about our past, what year teacher was your favorite in what grade, things like that. Does that help?

NO!!! It does NOT!!!

1. It does not because that information can be collected at other sites controlled by crackers. So unless you enter incorrect information (which is, in effect just another password) then it is useless.

2. It is still on your computer. So if your computer is cracked then the crackers get your username / password / favourite-dog-food / whatever.

3. Find a bank / credit union that uses real two factor authentication.

Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.

Exactly.

If the end result of civil disobedience is the exact same in the USofA as in North Korea ... then what is the difference?

The politicians demanding martyrdom would be just as comfortable working for North Korea's government as they are working for the USofA's government.

And THAT is a very big problem.

Gamergate was ignored because gamergate is not news.

My problem with it is that even if the initial event happened EXACTLY AS CLAIMED then it is still nothing.

The "story" became the reactions to that nothing event.

And then the reactions to those reactions to that nothing event.

And now we have a post mod'ed +5 Insightful for claiming that Gamergate wasn't covered.

No kidding. They need to be dropped on to the street from a very high altitude.

The way DICE has treated it, it's worth about whatever I can find stuck between the lint at the bottom of the pockets of my pants. Everything they've done in the last 12-24 months has only served to devalue the site.

And also, from TFA:

If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and â" importantly â" accept the consequences of his actions.

He IS dealing with the consequences. That's why he left.

What Lisa Monaco is pushing for is martyrdom.

We are supposed to be a country of laws. We should not have officials demanding martyrdom of those who oppose their policies.

That's all I've got to say about that.

What depresses me bout software is how often we JUST DO NOT LEARN!

And not just software. Look at security as well. And so many other computer-related areas.

Software development seems to be riddled with arrogant know nothings who think they can cut corners or reinvent the wheel because doing the right way isn't "7337".

For me it's more like ... someone "learned" one way of handing it when s/he was working ALONE.

Then that person never learned that the practices need to be changed when you are part of a TEAM.

And releasing your code to the public is being part of a team.

Really? I thought getting rid of that "free trade" stuff would magically make Brazil an electronics powerhouse??? I guess those dang economists are right.

The Founding Fathers explicitly made the Senate a "house of the States", where Senators, essentially acting as agents of the state legislatures, had the power to amend or veto bills produced in the House of Representatives. However, being unelected, Senators while enjoying greater prestige than Representatives, were also in a position where their powers were not democratically derived. The "check" as it were on the Senate was that any significant interference in bills would inevitably be viewed somewhat more dimly, which is how it has worked out in most Westminster parliaments.

With the 17th Amendment, the Senate gained the democratic legitimacy which in facts leads to the greater possibility of this seeming end-run around the requirement that money bills originate in the House. You don't really find this happening overly much in Canada, where the lack of democratic legitimacy means that Senators usually do not feel they have the right to alter taxation or spending bills. In the UK, of course, explicit measures were put in place in the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts that heavily restrict the House of Lords' ability to tamper with such bills.

It's similar to the situation at the end of WWI. Versailles called for wide-ranging disarmament among all the belligerents, which was all well and good in theory. In reality, of course, a great deal of the R&D that had gone into new weaponry; tanks, planes, ship designs, and so forth, still existed. In fact, the most valuable commodity of all, the German plans for the 1919 campaign that never was, still sat in archives, just waiting for someone to come along and dust them off.

The cat is out of the bag, has been out of the bag for a few decades now. When most of us look at devices like Mars Rovers, we're impressed by the technology and science, and yet that very same technology is easily adaptable to building autonomous weapons. Even if the Great Powers agreed, you can be darned sure they would still have labs building prototypes, and if the need arose, manufacturing could begin quickly.

I started buying 5.11 tactical pants made out of lightweight, stretchy nylon with a Teflon finish. They look like business casual pants but move like pajamas, and anything you spill on them rolls or wipes off. I don't think I've worn any other kinds of pants to work since I bought my first pair.

Largely, I expect, because that was the principle in effect in the British Parliament. It's a common feature of most, if not all, bicameral legislative assemblies, and it dates back to that division of powers between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Britain. The problem comes from the fact that the US Senate is elected, and thus it gains the democratic legitimacy to significantly tamper with bills. It's a debate being had in Canada right now, where we're trying to decide whether to reform or abolish our Senate. The fear up here is that an elected Senate (Canada's Senators are appointed by the Governor General in the name of the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister) would become like the US Senate, a competitor to the lower house, and that the supervisory role would be abandoned. Even in the UK the Lords' tendency to try to overrule the House of Commons reached the point where the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 were pushed through and give the Government an override power at second reading so the Lords cannot block a bill.