First brute force attack using computers. Absolutely brilliant.
Such a shame he committed suicide. God damn the british govt. of the time.

The reality is unfairly that testosterone does give males a huge athletic advantage when it kicks in. Similarly, most professional level sports are extremely dependent on athletic ability. Speed is included in that. There is a reason that the male world records for every sprint are faster than those for females. That reason is genetics and it doesn't care about political correctness or being fair.

In HS our senior girls basketball team had much better game sense, court awareness and overall basketball IQ, than the boys junior team. Those of us on the senior guys team were getting tired of the lack of respect the junior guys were showing for the senior girls and so we arranged a game between them. Knowing how much smarter and aware the girls were on the court we figured it'd be very humbling for the young guys to get beat. We were unpleasantly surprised to watch the younger guys simply running circles around the girls from one end of the floor to the other. They were just plain faster, a lot faster, and all the smarts in the world just didn't make up that difference.

It may not be fair, but that's the way it is. If smarts could make the difference, Michael Jordon would still be getting better every year, but realistically as age cuts into his athleticism smarts just aren't enough anymore and the torch is passed on to those in their prime.


>> ^Sepacore:

>> ^Stu:
>> ^Sepacore:
There is no reason a female couldn't achieve the same at teen or pro level. Speed and balance (and timing) is all it takes to be highly competitive.

There's a huge reason. If a female were to play in college or some how make it to the professional level. She may have tons of skill and balance like you say, she might even be the next Barry Sanders, but even he got hit. you put a 140 pound-150 pound girl in at running back, she will get injuries that would end the career as soon as it starts. Quickness is a lot, but men's natural ability to have that extra muscle and padding is why they keep men and women in different leagues.

If we were focusing entirely on brute-force forms of football, I agree. Except I wasn't, I was thinking more in the direction of how she could continue to utilize her honed skills.
I'm not disputing that males have a significant muscle advantage for handing out and taking impacts, but nor was I forgetting there are multiple versions of football, given that I loosely referenced such as a precursor to my point. My statement was an alternative to the 'testosterone wins everything' view.
To clarify, I specifically had Touch Football in mind when stating there would be no reason females couldn't effectively play with men post-puberty.

>> ^Stu:

>> ^Sepacore:
There is no reason a female couldn't achieve the same at teen or pro level. Speed and balance (and timing) is all it takes to be highly competitive.

There's a huge reason. If a female were to play in college or some how make it to the professional level. She may have tons of skill and balance like you say, she might even be the next Barry Sanders, but even he got hit. you put a 140 pound-150 pound girl in at running back, she will get injuries that would end the career as soon as it starts. Quickness is a lot, but men's natural ability to have that extra muscle and padding is why they keep men and women in different leagues.


If we were focusing entirely on brute-force forms of football, I agree. Except I wasn't, I was thinking more in the direction of how she could continue to utilize her honed skills.

I'm not disputing that males have a significant muscle advantage for handing out and taking impacts, but nor was I forgetting there are multiple versions of football, given that I loosely referenced such as a precursor to my point. My statement was an alternative to the 'testosterone wins everything' view.

To clarify, I specifically had Touch Football in mind when stating there would be no reason females couldn't effectively play with men post-puberty.

The problem with your riposte is that doesn't address my comment. The "justice" of a shooting by police where the facts are not yet known is not the concern of this sift. An angry mob outnumbering cops, say, 10 to 1, leaves cops with little option but to defend themselves from being killed. Or do you expect them to let mobs simply kill them?

A mob is not a gaggle of angry but thoughtful/idealistic/rational individuals, it's a "monster" with its own appetites, savage and anonymous. Witness riots by fans of sports teams that have won.

Do angry mobs run into burning buildings? Do they try to pile in to an ambulance while EMTs are attempting to load a stretcher? Then why the approval of fking with police trying to do a job?

The facts surrounding this shooting have yet to come to light.

Ignorance is expecting perfection from any human being, including cops.


>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Hey, I just got a great idea, let's all form an angry mob and go scream at police, even though we have no idea what the hell's going on. We do know some guy was shot and killed. We have no idea why he was running from police, whether he threatened police with deadly force or had just killed someone else--hell, we don't have context for any of this--all I know is I'm with this mob screeching at police. Bring the kids, they'll want to see this!"

That's bullshit. It doesn't matter if the people here were ignorantly lead to believe a lie about what they were protesting or if they were just plain wrong and supported a radical ideal. We shouldn't do this in America where even the ignorant like yourself are protected. We should support those with differing opinions with a dialog, not brute force. You and those in political office that support your fucked up vision of the world are the reason we're in this in the first place.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Hey, I just got a great idea, let's all form an angry mob and go scream at police, even though we have no idea what the hell's going on. We do know some guy was shot and killed. We have no idea why he was running from police, whether he threatened police with deadly force or had just killed someone else--hell, we don't have context for any of this--all I know is I'm with this mob screeching at police. Bring the kids, they'll want to see this!"


That's bullshit. It doesn't matter if the people here were ignorantly lead to believe a lie about what they were protesting or if they were just plain wrong and supported a radical ideal. We shouldn't do this in America where even the ignorant like yourself are protected. We should support those with differing opinions with a dialog, not brute force. You and those in political office that support your fucked up vision of the world are the reason we're in this in the first place.

>> ^Jinx:

I did a little Ju Jitsu. I'd expect the throws would be completely useless in a confined space. The knowledge of how to escape a choke hold or how to effectively disarm an opponent would probably be quite useful though, as would arm locks etc. Even comprehensive martial arts training can only do so much and I imagine when you have no room to move then brute force and weight advantage matters more.
The fact they chose Wing Chun seems to me to have more to do with PR than safety. Its a elegant martial art and it fits the image, but I wonder if there are simple more effective techniques that would probably give them better self defence.


Maybe Krav Maga? Bruce Lee did ok with his take on Wing Chun.

I did a little Ju Jitsu. I'd expect the throws would be completely useless in a confined space. The knowledge of how to escape a choke hold or how to effectively disarm an opponent would probably be quite useful though, as would arm locks etc. Even comprehensive martial arts training can only do so much and I imagine when you have no room to move then brute force and weight advantage matters more.

The fact they chose Wing Chun seems to me to have more to do with PR than safety. Its a elegant martial art and it fits the image, but I wonder if there are simple more effective techniques that would probably give them better self defence.

Brute force search. Tedious, but effective.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
Another question then: How do you find videos that are dead if they're not already marked? Browse from the oldest and keep a bookmark of your progress? Or maybe you do it the other way and go around killing YT videos that are embedded here. ;
In reply to this comment by jonny:
except when I'm on a dead spree

Are the leaders in Iran, for all the rhetoric, rational? I tend to think they are (at least as rational as the Israelis), and believe they are seeking a nuclear deterant, not to destroy Israel.

I think Isreal has to learn to be more diplomatic toward its neighbors, and stop leaning on brute force, their nuclear arsenal, or superpower sponsors.

"0000" is a valid password.</pedanatry>>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^possom:
What amuses me is that "hacking cell phones" has turned out to be "guessing voicemail passwords". I bet most of their information was gained by entering 1234 or 1111 into people's voicemail. Hacking? Stupid cell phone users for sure.

There are only 9999 10,000 possibilities and, since voicemail generally doesn't employ any sort of tarpitting or other brute force protections, I'm sure one could write a script to try voicemail passwords pretty rapidly. You don't even have to try them in succession since voicemail systems can handle multiple simultaneous connections.
Why find some clever backdoor or exploit when you can brute force the thing in a matter of an hour?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^possom:
What amuses me is that "hacking cell phones" has turned out to be "guessing voicemail passwords". I bet most of their information was gained by entering 1234 or 1111 into people's voicemail. Hacking? Stupid cell phone users for sure.

There are only 9999 possibilities and, since voicemail generally doesn't employ any sort of tarpitting or other brute force protections, I'm sure one could write a script to try voicemail passwords pretty rapidly. You don't even have to try them in succession since voicemail systems can handle multiple simultaneous connections.
Why find some clever backdoor or exploit when you can brute force the thing in a matter of an hour?


These guys aren't that smart. The majority of people aren't that smart and so, yes, entering default pins is characterised as "hacking". However it's done it still means an offence under the RIP Act. Of course it would be interesting if they did secure some hacker's services to brute force passwords. Nothing would surprise me from hereon in.

Story goes that some guy in the early days of phone use alerted a tabloid to this problem who surprisingly did not get back to him or run a story based on the tip. What happened is that the practice rapidly spread through Fleet Street. Another little scam journalists would do is hand new phones to crime victims they had access to so they could "stay in touch". The phones either had the default pin or changed to one the journalist knew.

>> ^possom:

What amuses me is that "hacking cell phones" has turned out to be "guessing voicemail passwords". I bet most of their information was gained by entering 1234 or 1111 into people's voicemail. Hacking? Stupid cell phone users for sure.


There are only 9999 possibilities and, since voicemail generally doesn't employ any sort of tarpitting or other brute force protections, I'm sure one could write a script to try voicemail passwords pretty rapidly. You don't even have to try them in succession since voicemail systems can handle multiple simultaneous connections.

Why find some clever backdoor or exploit when you can brute force the thing in a matter of an hour?

Brute force ftw

In answering other points; I never demand anything. Nor have I. Have you ever been wistful? That's how I feel and that's the emotion I am trying to express.

And I have always pointed to the fact that masses of people make stupid decisions. Perhaps because their worst traits feed off of one another's worst traits? But I strongly note that individuals are awesome, most smart, and better (Including yourself in this) than a mob or culture.

There is not a sense of admin versus the little guy from me. There is a sense of admins sometimes powerless to stop what has occurred.

But, let's note something else, since I feel long of wind today. It is your opinion that my view points are skewered, and that is fine. Perhaps that it is different, or otherwise "skewered," points to the possibility that it is better than others--although lacking self confidence prohibits me from feeling that way. As such, I will take the comment as neither compliment nor jab but as is--an opinion.

But now let me switch to socratic fashion in this--since he is my hero and I can better put my point of view across. And, so let's question some "knowns." It will help answer the question of how I got to my conclusions.

You stated that everything done here is for the "best" for the videosift community. So, if you will, please enlighten the sift on some quantifiable "best." Remember though, if you please, that doing for others a convinence is neither good nor ill, neither for the best nor worse but, rather, situational.

Also, we should remeber that the best is not necessarily such things as making people happy. Much happiness has been wrought at the expense of others. For instance, the estranged husband whose wife passes, or the videos of cops killing helpless people with brute force.

If I may ask, what was the reason for the standard in the first place? You seem to have stated, by denying that morals were comprimised, that the standard was never a standard, but rather, just a guideline created for creations sake.

Further, if I may be so bold, after admitting yourself that the slippery slope was started, then how can you boldly note that it should stop? My opinion was that it should have never started. And, while it is possible to state that the comment you made wasn't about the slippery slope starting, it is, unfortunately, now about that.

It's only 36^52 if the attacker knows there must be 52 characters, which seems fairly unlikely. Instead, assuming 52 is the longest likely password, you have to add up 36^52 + 36^51 + 36^50, etc...

In any case, this password is fairly secure. The brute force GPU methods another poster mentioned are currently viable against 9-10 character passwords, but only if we have the hash, and only if the hashing algorithm is very simple. The complexity of a hash would be something that we would expect to scale with processing power, so in terms of addressing this problem we could effectively assume that the resulting computer in TNG time would be about the same effectiveness as a current one (in terms of hashes analyzed per second).

Unfortunately, this password is about 10^62 times as complex as the largest viable brute force candidates. That is a large number.