The beauty of it is cases like Google's. They have this bizarre 2FA security-theater Google Authenticator thing, but then nearly force everyone to have their phonenumber as a "backup device".
Guess what the send you when you forget your 2FA or password? Yep, an SMS. So out the door goes the whole point of 2FA. Your three factors (account name / email address + password + Google Authenticator) have now been reduced to one factor: your email address.
I can rent a mobile tower in Malaysia or some other asian country, advertise your phonenumber as roaming there for about €10/h and start intercepting all your shit. Or just get your telco's inept service dept to forward your number somewhere else.
Lessons here:
1. Even the giants get it wrong.
2. There isnosecurity anywhere in the tech world. Literally everything is broken. Your electronic car locks / starter system, your phone, your internet, everything is horribly horribly horribly broken beyond any imagining, even for hyper-tech savvy people.
3. Remove your phonenumber as a backup device from your google account and never use it as a backup device every again.
I just removed my SMS from Google auth, thanks! And set up an Authenticator (Azure). I would like to see a world where we start removing SMS (and old passwords) from existing accounts.
Those numbers are from 2009 through 2015. That's just cherry picking, because those years just happen to include Anders Breivik. I think its well established that the US is the market leader in mass shootings.
Edit: Also, the president of Crime Prevention Research Center is John Lott, who's a known gun rights advocate. Your source does not seem to be very impartial.
What it rated false was the part where Obama said this type of thing doesn't happen (at all) in other countries.
And they went on to say that a lot of the other countries that ranked highly were small countries that had a single attack. Statistics don't work well in that regime.
And of course, here's what politifact themselves commented later:
"June 22, 2015: We heard from several of you regarding Obama's use of the word "frequency," and that frequency could refer to the incidents of mass shootings, not deaths as we examined. Looking at Obama's claim by incident, the United States has a higher rate of incidents than Finland, Norway and Switzerland. We agree that there is no preferred comparison and each is valid, and we've changed some language in this article to reflect that. ... "
Connecticut (the state where the Sandy Hook shooting too place) has a population of 3.6 million, compared to Norway's 5 million.
Would it be more reasonable to compare individual US states to individual European countries? If so, are we going to throw out outliers like Berveik and the Sandy Hook shooting? Because with that philosophy pretty soon there aren't any mass shootings anywhere.
Nope. First it is reasonable not to define such a thin slice of violent behavior (mass shootings of 6 or more people it related to another crime and some more criteria I can’t remember) as to have a completely meaningless stat. If you unabashedly cherry pick like that, you can ‘prove’ anything you like.
Fact is: the us has 10x the gun deaths and 4-6x the homicides compared to other modern industrialized democracies.
Fact is: when you try to make a reasonable apples to apples comparison between the US and European countries with regards to mass shootings the numbers supporting your original statement are at best murky and at worst bordering on pants on fire falsehood.
You may have some valid points regarding gun deaths and homicide rates, but that's not what this discussion was about.
> The more likely cause is the legal structure around gun ownership in the United States.
Gun ownership may be an enabler in mass shootings, but I don't believe it's the cause. Merely having a gun doesn't automatically make you a mass murderer. There are other underlying issues there. Not that that means the U.S. shouldn't do something about the legal structure around gun ownership. It's probably going to be much much harder to actually address the underlying cause.
Sorry, I should have said "cause of the difference"
Obviously people don't go on sprees merely because they have a weapon. But they need gun access in order to commit a mass shooting.
I do agree there might well be some additional cause. I think if you flooded Canada with guns you would see more mass shootings, but perhaps not as much. The US does have an overall higher crime rate, after all. And mass shootings do occur elsewhere, though the US is consistently high up per capita.
It is for Whatsapp. Not only for sign-up, but actually all communication on the web version goes through the app running on your phone. The web "session" times out constantly, so I'd have to re-pair it with my phone all the time. If I still decided to use whatsapp.
To be really pedantic; a smartphone is not required for WhatsApp. You can activate a Google voice number with a landline, then use your Google voice number to activate WhatsApp running in BlueStacks or your emulator of choice.
Source: I did this for a few months. I'm not quite sure why...
Your phone connects to WhatsApp's servers. So does your laptop. The bridging is likely done server-side. I assume this is done because WhatsApp is (probably) using end-to-end encryption, so everything must be ran by your phone (which is the only place where your private key is stored) in order to encrypt the messages.
Because NATting encapsulates while routing doesn't? And encapsulation is the whole idea behind containers. Until everything is ready for IPv6 (lol, yeah right), NATting seems the only way to me.
Does the author have any evidence that's it's typically white males?
Is the author implying that white males are to blame for draconic / legalistic Wikipedia?
Has the author proven that draconic wikipedia editting is a bad thing?
Does the author show, in a mere three words) that they're both racist and sexist? (answer: yes).
I like how the author negates the entire point of their article just by casually mentioning thier unproven, unfounded bias. This person's thoughts are not worth anybody's time.
> Obviously no one would ever run something like this 1 vm per request thing irl.
I can see plenty of use-cases for doing just that. Large uploads, time-consuming request/responses such as server-side data processing, RPC, as a backend behind a caching front-end so that it only has to respond to invalidated cache entries, etc.
I don't see many people using this to actually serve general website requests though. It'd probably be modified to serve multiple requests until nothing is left to do and then exit.
I'm not sure that would be my takeaway from that quote. In the analogy of Unit testing, the test would have found the cracks in the turbine blades. It seems to me that Feynman continuously argues for deep investigation into any problems encountered, rather than (seemingly) ignoring them or making up excuses for why they're not problems.
He regards independent code verifications and testing highly, it seems:
> The software is checked very carefully in a bottom-up fashion. First, each new line of code is checked, then sections of code or modules with special functions are verified. The scope is increased step by step until the new changes are incorporated into a complete system and checked. This complete output is considered the final product, newly released. But completely independently there is an independent verification group, that takes an adversary attitude to the software development group, and tests and verifies the software as if it were a customer of the delivered product. There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc. A discovery of an error during verification testing is considered very serious, and its origin studied very carefully to avoid such mistakes in the future.
I'd consider this quote a clear argument for unit testing though:
> There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc.
In the end, it seems to come down to the simple concept of: spending more time on verifying code results in better code. Whether it is through automated testing, code reviews, independent (and competent) user acceptance testing, etc.
I used to run an abandoned warez site when I was young. I received a lot of cease and desist letters from "lawyers". They usually failed to identify the infringing material, failed to show they had the right to act on the copywriters behalf and a staggering amount of them confused trademark infringement with copyright infringement. Also, every last one I received via email. Yeah, right, like that's going to hold up. I ignored all of them and never got even so much as a follow up.
In other words, such things are considered low-hanging fruit by these companies. Just throw it out there and see what sticks.
Luckily the german system is less strict than the DMCA, you can fact-check any letters you get, you only need to act if you know (for certain) it's illegal
Guess what the send you when you forget your 2FA or password? Yep, an SMS. So out the door goes the whole point of 2FA. Your three factors (account name / email address + password + Google Authenticator) have now been reduced to one factor: your email address.
I can rent a mobile tower in Malaysia or some other asian country, advertise your phonenumber as roaming there for about €10/h and start intercepting all your shit. Or just get your telco's inept service dept to forward your number somewhere else.
Lessons here:
1. Even the giants get it wrong. 2. There is no security anywhere in the tech world. Literally everything is broken. Your electronic car locks / starter system, your phone, your internet, everything is horribly horribly horribly broken beyond any imagining, even for hyper-tech savvy people. 3. Remove your phonenumber as a backup device from your google account and never use it as a backup device every again.