Reminds me of the statement by I think H. Abelson though it might have been Sussman (from their SICP video lecture 1)that goes something like :
Computer Science is not a science and it's not about computers.
Computer science is only about computers in the same way that physics is about particle accelerators.
Which would be far less secure than just hashing the entire password. I don't think it takes long to generate a rainbow table based on one character long pass-phrases.
I seriously doubt they do this, storing a hash for every single character would eat up a lot of space very quickly. My guess is that they store your password in plain-text. What bank is this btw?
HSBC also did this. For business they use hard tokens. IIRC they were moving personal accounts to hard tokens too, I moved countries and lost access to my online account because of this (there was no money there, I tried to get them to send me a token to my new address but the person I talked to was hard to understand and the token never arrived).
What would be the point? The purpose of hash functions is that they are difficult to invert. How many characters are there? How difficult would it be to hash each character? Answer: easy.
That's an incredible statistic. If the cause is cultural then
it's a wonder there isn't a plethora of books advising on how to raise children the Ashkenazi way. Are there any such books?
Typical HN racism and misogyny aside, why not go to the top of the intellectual world and listen to Chomsky and Einstein? There's no end of opinions from them. Chomsky in particular answers emails quickly. So no need to ape some culture's forms, but rather ask their most successful members.
The problem is, their answers don't please many who'd ask such questions. Einstein claimed:
"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."
Or take Chomsky:
"A lot of the educational system is designed for that, if you think about it, it's designed for obedience and passivity. From childhood, a lot of it is designed to prevent people from being independent and creative. If you're independent-minded in school, you're probably going to get into trouble very early on. That's not the trait that's being preferred or cultivated. When people live through all this stuff, plus corporate propaganda, plus television, plus the press and the whole mass, the deluge of ideological distortion that goes on, they ask questions that from another point of view are completely reasonable...."
So let's turn the question around (because it's not about Jews being the Master Race or being culturally superior to say Africans): how do we triumph over dominant institutions which are out to turn us into idiots?
We don't want to know what Chomsky or Einstein thought about the educational system, that's irrelevant. What we really want to know is how their parents treated them. Actually, we want something more general -- commonalities in Jewish upbringing, especially of those who went on to be successful.
I'm not sure who "we" are, and why "we don't want to know" things despite wanting to be smarter. In any case, Chomsky certainly wasn't secretive about his education and parenting. Did you look it up?
"My father was, professionally, a Hebrew scholar, and worked with Hebrew grammar. And my mother was a Hebrew teacher. My father sort of ran the Hebrew school system in the city of Philadelphia, and my mother taught in it. He taught in Hebrew College later. There's a Graduate University of Jewish Studies, Dropsie College, which he taught in."
"Actually, I happen to have been very lucky myself and gone to an experimental-progresive Deweyite school, from about the time I was age one-and-a-half to twelve [John Dewey was an American philosopher and educational reformer]. And there it was done routinely: children were encouraged to challenge everything, and you sort of worked on your own, you were supposed to think things through for yourself -- it was a real experience. And it was quite a striking change when it ended and I had to go to the city high school, which was the pride of the city school system. It was the school for academically-oriented kids in Philadelphia -- and it was the dumbest, most ridiculous place I've ever been, it was like falling into a black hole or something. For one thing, it was extremely competitive -- because that's one of the best ways of controlling people. So everybody was ranked, and you always knew exactly where you were: are you third in the class, or maybe did you move down to fourth? All this stuff is put into people's heads in various ways in the schools -- that you've got to beat down the person next to you, and just look out for yourself."
Ok, raised by teachers/scholars who even ran a school system, and went to a school which cultivated critical thinking. Surprising that he turned out to be such a successful academic...
No need to turn to racist theories, or cultural mysticism. Answers are quite simple, but not everyone wants to hear them.
As suggested recently by 'How To Geek' I have installed Boxcryptor in my dropbox folder.
Boxcryptor was obviously inspired by Dropbox's limitations and as far as I can see solves them perfectly with encryption of every file at the client end.
Dropbox simply stores and syncs these encrypted files.
The linked article says :
'Ultimately, I’ve come to the conclusion that scale matters in the cloud. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have the experience and the engineering depth to get operational and security issues right.'
Until a little while ago I wonder if the author would have objected to Sony being added to that list?
I don't think of Sony when I think of "the cloud".
However - Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are major players and most people do think of these guys when it comes to cloud storage. Amazon is of course the gold standard and Google is trusted. Microsoft is kinda sort there.
