Also, due to the new ICANN email verification requirement, there is going to be an increase in the number of "parked" domains.
First 6 are non-secret, last 4 are non-secret. And one additional digit is a checksum, therefore non-secret. So, a credit card has 5 digits of secrecy.
I don't know about anybody else, but the reason I don't find Netflix DRM unpalatable is because I didn't purchase the content. The "rental" is very explicit in the agreement between the Netflix and the consumer. If Netflix were to start to sell movies, I would find that objectionable. I do find Steam objectionable, as well as most DRM.
Also, you are then susceptible to the very same MITM attacks by the VPN provider. (Although they do have an incentive to remain honest.)
The primary development goal of Tor is to prevent the request from being traced back to the requester. (As a secondary effect, it also bypasses various national/regional content blocking schemes.) Malicious exit relays are detrimental, but in theory the user should be aware of the trust issues involved. I would label this as a user education issue.
The major points being:
- If your traffic is on the Internet, unless it is encrypted (such as by SSL), it can be passively monitored with only moderate effort.
- If you are using Tor to reach the Internet, your traffic can't be traced back to you, but it still goes out over the Internet; see the previous point for more details. Tor can do nothing once the traffic is back on the Internet.
- Attacks such as sslstrip exist. Be on guard against them.
But hey, at least Win8 beat Congress!
A great example of this that I've seen is: Shine a spotlight at the moon (from Earth) and sweep it across the surface. You can move the spot faster than the speed of light, thus the wave moves faster than c, but no individual photon moves faster than c, and no information is conveyed faster than c.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division allows an employer not to pay a trainee if all of the following are true:
- The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;
- The training is for the benefit of the trainees;
- The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;
- The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded;
- The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and
- The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.
I'll second this. Another similar option is Sandboxie. It sandboxes the browser, preventing any exploits from escaping into the rest of the system. Also, make sure they are using Chrome or Firefox. And finally, ad-blocking software makes a huge difference.
The point is to minimize the amount of information you actually have. You don't need to know the password itself, you only need to know that they know the password. So, you store just enough information to be able to check that the person attempting to log in knows the password.
Very interesting and insightful troll. I was tempted to mod you up, but I figured a reply would be preferred.
Originally I disagreed with your post, but upon attempting to reply, I found that I agree that "both sides are equally bad/dishonest/wrong" is a cop-out, but I disagree that it's embarrassing. It's only embarrassing if you aren't doing anything to back up your belief, and voting is a good start, but it isn't enough.
Ever since this first started being discussed, I've been thinking M/W/F and T/Th/Sa makes a lot of sense. (a different route for each.) You could toss in 5 or 6 day delivery for commercial addresses.
As I've learned, the correct answer is, "Sure, but it'll cost them $n megabucks, and it will take x amount of time." (I'm sure rimcrazy also figured this out since then.)
Thank you, that answers my question perfectly. An immoral act is immoral in and of itself. Someone's suicide does not affect the morality of the original act.
To the dispassionate and disinterested outside observer, a mentally disturbed man committed suicide. The only one at fault is the mentally disturbed man.
I've long believed that suicide is nobody's fault except for the one who committed the act. However, I very much want to blame the DA for pushing him to commit suicide. I realize it's an emotional response, but there must be some basis in fact. At what point does provoking someone who then commits suicide become the moral and ethical responsibility of the provocateur?
I know I'm responding to a troll, but it hits upon an issue I've been thinking about for some time. It's well known how DAs threaten disproportionate punishments in order to get a plea bargain. And it's easy to see how this might get someone who was previously not seriously considering suicide to start doing so. Where should the line be drawn? Online/offline bullying? Threats of imprisonment? Threats of physical violence and/or torture? Or is it never someone else's fault?