Where does OP mention requiring Skype?
Where does OP mention a laptop?
Where does OP mention requiring Skype?
Where does OP mention a laptop?
Doesn't support Skype.
Clearly based on the criteria you provided, you meant a Windows Surface Tablet.
And each and every guy who stays silent while another guy makes sexist remarks, is telling women that sexist behavior is perfectly fine by him.
Assuming you're correct (and I'm not convinced): I wouldn't have expected females to be so judgemental. Personally, I try to avoid conclusions without more concrete information. As we already have business classes on sexual harassment, sexist remarks etc. Perhaps we need a new one on judgement and generalizations? Such classes could help the divide between male and female ratios if they're the root cause.
Who in their right mind would WANT to work somewhere where they can't trust their colleagues not to make their life miserable?
In my experience, there seems to be always one person, doesn't matter if it's in McDonalds or doing consulting work for one of the biggest tech companies. I don't think anyone
Nah mate. I just bought myself a new computer, monitor and a year worth of VPS and a domain name with bitcoin.
Show me in the block chain where this happened.
For example, sending money internationally to relatives, an $850 billion market, has an average fee of 9% from places like Western Union.
If you use a HSBC bank account, you can freely transfer between your own multi-national accounts for free and then do a transfer at the cost of a 'local country' transfer (in some countries, a local bank transfer doesn't cost anything). If you are a smart person, you would use these accounts for transferring money to relatives.
This is probably less expensive than the conversion fees and cuts that Bitcoin exchanges would take and any additional payment provider system to get that money to the person would (since it appears most Bitcoin exchanges don't handle currency themselves, but instead use payment services).
That market is just begging to be undercut by bitcoin.
Bitcoin needs to undercut decent banks like HSBC, I don't see that happening unless people are paying everything through Bitcoin.
However, it takes time to set up a network of currency exchangers, something Western Union already has. Give it a few years.
I suspect by then, many of the international banks would have duplicated HSBC's offerings which would compete well against this. I also suspect Western Union will take different business approaches to counter this as well.
I still remember when I made that decision: going for a job interview as a programmer and being told that all the guys like making sexist jokes, and that I'd have to be OK with that.
I can understand that isn't a fun environment. On the upside, at least he told you about it before you even started. I suspect some places wouldn't even consider that being an issue.
Some of the comments here show that the culture still isn't women-friendly in a lot of places.
I'm the sort that really just wants to get the job done well with best talent and soon with the least amount of friction from people.
It only takes one jerk allowed to speak their mind to make a workplace unbearable.
As a male, I run into this problem on some projects. Although not generally related to sexism, the person just has an objectionable personality.
Why aren't you explaining the reality of the situation then?
It's funny because it's so 'obvious' but apparently nobody here appears to have concrete information one way or another, are you some sort of troll?
I work in that industry and I don't push females in any particular direction. I will always prefer the person that has a better knack, gets things delivered sooner etc.
Single sign on means that all someone needs to gain access to all of your shit is one username and one password. It's exactly the same thing as using identical logins for everything.
While it's true if you know the specific credentials, you can get into the account, single sign on solutions also give the ability to effortlessly include two-factor authentication without needing the application to specifically support it and having to manually setup a whole bunch of tokens for each users.
That said, because on a federated single sign on system, you have to compromise the the login system rather than the application in order to it. The only way a login can be compromised in this scenario is if you get into the federated single sign on solution, getting into any other system that uses it won't help you in this regard because they don't handle or store logins from a federated single sign on solution. Additionally, you have completely ignored all the other statements regarding auditing capabilities, revocation of access etc.
You also forget that single sign on also means, one sign in and you are logged into everything at the same time. You don't get this with multiple login systems.
So no, this is not the same at all.
why are you being mean to me?
I'm not mean, I'm special.
That makes me feel bad.
Here, take this, it might make you feel better.
Using the SSO solution outside the SSO domain is not supported, and if you need to do that, you would generally place a reverse proxy in front of the servers not part of the domain.
This is not possible for me, so this will break the web for people who use my stuff. I expect it will also break others who also have the situation where they make use of certain cloud services that rely on certain federated SSO solutions similar to openid for login integration.
I also wouldn't be very happy about login URLs not using the same domain always, from a security point of view, a user would become used to the idea that there is a separate login prompt for every domain, making the problem of phishing larger.
Depending on clients compromising their security in order for you to get less work does not instill a lot of confidence in your single sign-on solution and by extension, how safe it is.
For some reason you think this actually prevents the nefarious tracking that users don't want. I already included more than enough examples on another post that shows this is not the case.
You are misleading people into a false sense of security, you're making users think that everything is fine, when in reality it is going to break things and the nefarious ones are still going to be able to do what the users think they aren't doing.
To put it in other words, the so called advantages of this solution you are claiming is more secure is an illusion and only serves to break legitimate systems that aren't intended to be nefarious in nature.
Anyone who uses single sign on is fucking stupid.
Because not using the same login to access webmail, web storage, bug report facilities from the same organisation is 'fucking stupid'? Sorry, I disagree.
You might as well just use the same user name and password for everything.
That's more insecure than federated single sign on. If a specific system is compromised, the credentials are not in a federated single sign on solution. It also means that when you revoke a single user's access, all their access is removed in a federated single sign on solution. If you give a user access, their access is automatically available at all the systems they're meant to have access to in a federated single sign on solution. If you want to have auditing of access, a federated single sign on solution makes this very simple, while trying to audit across many systems with different user databases can be quite difficult etc.
Odd, my post here disappeared... I'll just rewrite it.
It sounds like a very small minority would get into trouble with this.
You never even bothered verifying that this software has this issue, if you even bothered, you would realize that a lot of other sign on solutions are at risk too. Instead you waste everyone's time, noh8rz10. You even wasted the reader's time by not bothering to verify anything here.
I'm having to add to my examples because you changed the requirements, I felt something that really personally effects me was sufficient because you didn't bother posting your requirement where this is meant to effect some wide spread amount of users. So fine, I will humour you and tell you one more but this is the last time I accept your moving of goal posts in this conversation. But you have wasted my time too, noh8rz10.
Posting YouTube comments will not work without 3rd party cookies and you can bet there are plenty of other websites that have similar issues.
As I see it now, I have now fulfilled your prerequisite of:
Please demonstrate any problems with default 3rd party blocking, other than advertising and tracking. Specific sites and examples.
everyone else benefits from advanced protection
This is not advanced protection, this is a very simple protection, something that even existed in the 90s. In fact, it was disabled by default because it broke single sign on systems from Yahoo and broke certain embedding of content. You're claims are just going to lead people into a false sense of security. The reality is that someone whom wants to be nefarious can still track people using other methods, off the top of my head... Storing identifiers in RGB values through HTML5 canvas, storing identifiers through HTML5 session storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 local storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 global storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 database storage, storing identifiers through userData storage, storing identifiers through window.name caching, soring idenfitiers through Local Shared Objects, storing identifiers through isolated storage, storing identifiers through web history, storing identifiers through etags, storing identifiers through web cache, storing identifiers throughg HTTP authentication caching, verifying identity through font availability and plugin setup. And that's just the stuff I remember off the top of my head to track someone through webbrowsers using more nefarious methods.
Safari does it right; this is why google had to hack the browsers.
Safari does this right.. By setting a false sense of security and then adding a feature where website owners can override the setting by telling the browser "yeah, you can trust me"... Yeah, no.
examples! real examples that apply to the world
Organisations that use single sign on solutions like: https://www.atlassian.com/software/crowd/overview
not just your private project
My project isn't private, I'm just not mentioning the name because Slashdotters frown upon advertising.
He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.