Sae5waip

No need to. See "man git-commit".

See "man git-commit", it's in there. :)

Great, now I'm hungry again.

D6NgzgWK6H8dCeyck3zcLAp4d75KVBXrkR

(I do wonder why you can afford to just give away coins. Many thanks, though.)

No, bank websites are bank websites.

And bank websites are operated by banks.

And banks are regulated by governments.

"a tremendous honor" -- wait, what?

Why should becoming a citizen of a country be "an honour"?

(Especially when the country in question is the US; it fits the "US americans are superior humans" theme just right, even when realistically it doesn't seem to be something to be proud of... but that's besides the point.)

I don't know what they were thinking. It's wrong, they shouldn't violate their users privacy like that.

The news is that Disqus is relying on that.

From the same person, but not from that email address. Bad idea, but as per the article people expect these posts not to be linkable to their e-mail address. Why? Well, obviously, because that's the way Disqus works "usually".

Actually, yeah, it will be cracked, by someone.

And E-Mail-addresses aren't passwords; trying a few hundred variations for each firstname for each lastname is perfectly feasible and should crack a nice percentage of these hashes.

Why don't/shouldn't they?!

Theres a security problem with Disqus.

Apparently it (genereal technique) is "old news"

Apparently Disqus doesn't care enough to fix it.

Demonstrating the attack may be the only way to get them to care.

The latter.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agda_(programming_language)

No, it's probably bitterness. Most americans wouldn't understand.

Because the people running these services apparently cared more for quick money than for security. Or running their own server. I mean, who runs that kind of thing on a cheap rented server? No pity here.

They took a risk, and one don't always win when taking a risk. (You startup folks should know.)

He probably means "stabilized using gyro and accelerometer" (ie, release sticks = evens itself out) as opposed to "just stabilized by gyros" (ie, release sticks, copter stops any rotation but keeps pitched/rolled position).

Sure, learning to hover in one general spot is doable in 10 minutes. I wouldn't call that "learning to fly".

What about very basic maneuvers like landings (no bouncing around, no dropping from too high, and at the spot where you wanted to land) or circles/eights, dealing with ambiguous orientations when your copter is high enough (~ 6m ?), nose-in flying / dealing with control reversal and recovering from orientation loss?

For internal websites, be your own CA and distribute the cert via AD (or include it in your OS image, or whatever).

You'll be protected against NSA-style snoop-everything passive attacks.

CAs will always be able to MITM you. Like I said: "the notion of CAs is problematic."

There are two caveats:

1) certificate pinning: your browser has a hard-coded list of certificates for all major websites (e.g. Chromium: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/n... (scroll down!))

2) there are add-ons (ie Certificate Patrol) that warn you when the certificate changes

Don't worry, you just don't understand how TLS works :-)

The CA never gets the private key. Instead they get a certificate signing request (CSR), which only contains the public key part. They sign that.

Oh, and then there is perfect forward secrecy, which basically means that even the servers private key is not the one used to encrypt the actual data (after the initial handshaking, and only for suitable cipher suites, subject to downgrade attacks).

Disclaimer: at least, thats how its properly done. Some CAs offer a "send us your cert and we'll sign it", and dumb people who shouldn't be admins use it because it's (slightly) easier to use.

But you got the conclusion right, the notion of CAs is problematic.

Would be nice if it was a task that could be solved faster by programming than by googling.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=base64+online

One should add: secret contracts (laws, for germans), that the population isn't being allowed to know about.

You'll be able to do that with JavaScript. (It'll be very disruptive.)

Making lots of money with web applications, apparently (or trying to, anyway).

Real hacking is non-commercial.

Point taken.

BTW, I did find this[1] graph very interesting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependenc...

Yes, seriously.

You imply that it is a ridiculous option, but it is not.

You don't get withdrawal symptoms from stopping to eat cheeseburgers.

If've seen it happen to people.

No drugs are bad because they're addictive and have negative health effects.

Yes.

The software engineers rather directly.

The others are there to support the software and other engineers.

Not everything has to be a web application, and not all web applications have to be hosted by a third party.

Thats not what he meant.

What he meant is that you are putting the private data of the applicants on the internet, on the servers of another company. I too find this highly dubious.