It would be a huge help to the community if you would read the paper and point out where the study's methods, analysis, or computations are flawed. You lead on like you know quite a bit about this.
Pssst... this is
#gamergate is over thataway, young man.
I know of no other site that respects the sanctity of the indelible, un-editable comment as well as Slashdot does.
One of the reasons I stayed.
I still find slashdot entertaining, due to the humour, the culture, etc... I just don't learn much from it any more. Back in the early days, there was always something new to be learned about technology, open source, computer security. I think both slashdot and I have evolved. I simply know more now, and slashdot might have gone down a the drain a little bit. However, I say that with the knowledge that other forums never even had the level of conversation one gets here, even now.
Picture, instead of Clippy, we could have Microsoft Creeper.
Sure, it's not the most efficient codebase, but on a modern machine with power to spare, it's rather fine. Now, I have run it on a rather high end Core2Duo. That's less fun.
I could harvest 5m gmail names from google searches, and then publish them with bogus passwords and create panic. Is there some statistic that says how many of these were real passwords? Because wouldn't it be illegal to use them (accessing another person's account w/o their permission is a crime in the USA).
Seems like it would be easy to manufacture a lot of FUD by making these claims w/o really having any passwords at all, and no one could verify it?