Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The result is that I now have an email I sent to myself, in a folder, which very clearly states "GW2 password is 'aaa bbb ccc ddd'". It's in a Gmail [apps] account at least (so as per the article it's reasonably secure), but it's really no different than writing my password on a post-it on my monitor from an *actual* security standpoint.
Thus in trying to "improve" security, they force me to have a very infrequently used password that there's absolutely no chance I will ever remember, so I have to store it in an alternate location. Either that or pretty much every time I [re]install the client I have to "forget password", at which point either they're relying on absolutely nothing more than my email account's security, or they randomly require that I send in some kind of identification and wait 24+hrs like my wife had to a month ago.
There's got to be a way to report these outright failures to some kind of regulatory body, and force them to fix these things. I'm just worried that there might not *be* a regulatory body for this....
On the other extreme, I found myself having to "generate a password" for Guild Wars 2, who take http://xkcd.com/936/ as gospel and created a 4-word passphrase for me. Compound this with the fact that they kick out "any password used by you or anybody else *ever*" as a password change, which makes it absolutely clear that they store all passwords in plaintext, and I'm not really impressed with those jokers either.
(Not to mention I can't actually manage to *read* most people's cursive writing, no matter what era they were taught it in.)
Looks like they're counting ATM frames, not your IP traffic.
However, to *really* convince people, more rigorous experiment has to be performed: find a VPN (or set up your own with a colo) that's connected as closely to Verizon as possible, as close to their peering with Netflix as possible. That way the route between Verizon and your VPN/colo is as similar as possible to the Verizon<>Netflix route. You can then measure Netflix bandwidth to your VPN/colo, and the resulting full-path bandwidth.
I *strongly* suspect you'll see the exact same behavior, but by doing that you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Verizon is absolutely to blame. It still doesn't separate the packet-throttling scenario from the insufficient-peering scenario, because even though your Verizon ingress point is ideally the same router, Netflix is *supposed* to peer to that router through dedicated lines (e.g. trunked 10G to the next room over where Netflix's router is).
Of course, since Netflix has offered to both purchase and install the 10G cards and wires on their own dime, that scenario is absolutely no different than packet-throttling. Except that in order to do packet throttling, Verizon had to spend *more* money on hardware than they would have to just add more capacity. Now *there's* a bit of research to do: $ to throttle vs $ to add capacity.....
Sorry, but if you're a congressional staffer, using a computer in a congressional office, why are you making edits about birds in Omsk, or KDE? You want to make those edits, do them from your own home on your own time. There, I fixed it.
"An order of magnitude more? 200 dollars? Really?"
Apparently you're too dumb to comprehend that he very clearly stated that $20 is *more* than the gas cost by an order of magnitude. That means he's spending $2 in gas for the trip. At the current ~$4/gal with what passes for an "efficient" vehicle in the US, that puts his round trip at ~12.5mi, or roughly 6 miles from the airport.
The depth of your illiteracy truly astounds me.
It is being held on May 5th and 6th, of *2014*.
I'm a little fuzzy on how you a) start a business selling labels that promise long-term lookup&return, then b) stop selling new labels and thus getting new income, while c) still being required ("nominally") to provide the lookup&return service, without d) running out of money and imploding.
Am I missing something with either their site or their apparent lack of business model???