Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Notecard In Wallet For Life (Score 1) 1007

That's a good idea, but don't actually write down the real password. Instead, write down a password reminder. For example, have a case-switching rule. So, if your wallet says "sLash.r0X", your real password is "SlASH.R0x". Or else write it backwards, etc.

Still change your passwords if the slip of paper is stolen, though.

Comment Re:Hashing Works (Score 2, Interesting) 1007

Yes, I have a similar mental hash, although it is more complicated and so the password is longer. It makes sure that no two sites have the same password, so no one can get into my e-mail, say, just because they have found my Slashdot password. They take too long to type in, though, so I let Firefox remember them. Firefox protects them all with one master password that I enter once per session. In turn, my entire home directory (including the Firefox profile) is on a TrueCrypt partition (protected by a completely different passphrase). Incidentally, any sensitive files are encrypted with GPG (with a completely different, long passphrase) before being stored on the TrueCrypt partition for good measure.

If you are worried that your mental hash is easily crackable (e.g. you use "SDpass" for Slashdot, "FBpass" for Facebook... haha, OK that's an exaggeration), then obfuscate it further by using a real hash. Run "SDpass" through md5sum, and you get "6809ec345ad1a2b72f9f8a6e3f96266b". "FBpass" becomes "5b128c5443f4467dfdd4553c3f9a6733". It is not realistically possible for anyone to see any connection between the two. Should you find yourself on a computer lacking md5sum, you could use online services such as in order to get the hash. (The paranoid will obviously want to do so only in an emergency, as it will be sent over the Web in plaintext, although nobody will have any reason to think it is a password.)

Since md5sum output is limited to the characters 0123456789abcdef, you may want to manually add a few more fixed characters (such as "#@S|-|") to the final product. That way no one can get access, even if they see you generating the hash.

Comment Re:This is news? (Score 1) 808

You have to be intelligent to join mensa, but if you're smart as well, you'll know only stoopid people crow about joining mensa.

That's fine, as long as you apply the same principle to people who crow about having that master's degree, or having led that department for ten years. Otherwise it's envy.

Comment Win some, lose some (Score 1) 1231

Karmic Koala fixed a few bugs for me. It has, however, stopped me installing Firefox extensions. I'm going to the Ubuntu Forums now to fix that.

It's probably my fault, because at the same time as upgrading, I also moved all my configuration files around and encrypted my whole drive. This makes it hard to tell whether any given problem is due to the upgrade or to my messing around. I'm also using the 64-bit edition, which could add compatibility issues.

Comment Re:Webmail + encryption? (Score 1) 451

That is: if anyone figures out a way to combine end-to-end encryption with web based e-mail (popular as it is).

I take it you are not familiar with the FireGPG browser extension. I can encrypt text, decrypt text and verify signatures on any website with a couple of clicks. There is Gmail integration too.

Comment Re:Semi-Vegetarian (Score 2, Insightful) 162

Indeed. I came here to point out much the same thing: it may be OK for the mainstream media to dumb down their reporting by using the anthropomorphic term "vegetarian" (a word referring to a philosophy) instead of the correct term "herbivore" (or, in this case, "omnivore"), but this is supposed to be news for nerds.

And yes, it's annoying that a sizeable proportion of the comments modded up as insightful on here will essentially be saying "I eat meat. Some people don't. LOL".

Comment Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (Score 1) 630

You're utterly immune to logic.

Except here Essentially, yeah. Except the shutting-up part is optional. (the "optional" part is a qualification, not a denial)

It's neither. It's an exception. The word "except" might be a hint there.

Imagine this. You ask, "did you get everything on the shopping list?". I reply, "yes, except for the apples." Later, you say, "where the hell are the apples? You said you got everything on the list. The "except" part was a qualification, not a denial!"

[You] argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing (which, in context, is saying shut up since the "certain thing" was the entire content of Phroggy's post)

It looks like you are inadvertently finally answering my question. I asked you what you though "say so" was referring to, and you are claiming here that it means "say all that which Phroggy said". You have it wrong. It actually only refers to the tail end of Phroggy's first paragraph, about the strategy having failed.

"It is possible that they could convey the same message" which is an acknowledgement that your post conveyed the message "shut up" even though you now claim you didn't say that.

I really must have you pegged, because as I wrote that, I strongly suspected that you would respond in this way.

I have identified you as someone with a black-and-white mentality, unable to see grey. For you, "could convey" is incomprehensible. You have to interpret it as "conveys" to make it fit your point. The idea that A could convey B in another context, but not this one, is beyond you. Furthermore, the idea of your opponent politely making a concession to you, granting that something you've said is not entirely stupid because it could make sense in a different context, is not an idea you can grasp. Instead, you interpret it as your opponent letting something slip and then slyly retracting it.

I don't have a "point" as such.

Glad we can agree on something.

Sadly, I also was pretty sure that you'd go for that low blow. And yet I said it anyway, as a gift to you. It's a sign of how badly you're doing that I can hand you rhetorical flourishes on a plate, without fear.

Yes, it affects your credibility, since those with a valid argument don't need to resort to such tactics.

It's not a matter of need. I've already given an example where a valid statement was made, accompanied by a personal attack. Will you conclude that "such tactics" prove that the person has no argument? Was invading Poland therefore OK in your book?

Oh, I made a spelling mistake. Woe is me! Have mercy, ChameleonDave, have mercy.

Woe, eh? The rest of your post is far more woeful. This is reflected in the fact that I devoted a mere two words to correcting the spelling. You, of course, would rather now talk about that, to deflect attention from your faulty arguments.

Slashdot Top Deals