Technically correct, but since the password is readable in some way, it's in many ways the same as storing it in plaintext. If the database got hacked, odds are that the key is found too. Or if an admin is rogue, there is no stopping him.
This looks interesting, the tabbed effect is a major draw for me personally, but I feel like hes got a bit of a price tier issue with the rewards on the kickstarter...
His target price for the released product is hopefully $10 ( a good deal )
The $20 pledge gets you 2 licenses
Cost Per License: $10
Additional Perk: Nothing
The $50 pledge gets you 1 license
Cost Per License: $50
Additional Perk: Beta Access
The $100 pledge gets you 5 licenses
Cost Per License: $20
Additional Perk: Immediate Access
And that's just a small analysis of those 3 price points. The higher points also seem a little off to me as well. It just seems odd to have the Cost Per License to vary so wildly, in my unsolicited opinion, anyways.
I understand trying to play to the draw of people wanting quicker access to use the tool, but his pricing model creates tiers that are counter-intuitive to people who want to contribute, but do not want to receive what could be perceived as a poor value for the cash they have available to contribute.
I've been using it for a while, and it works pretty well.
From the project page: "Console is a Windows console window enhancement. Console features include: multiple tabs, text editor-like text selection, different background types, alpha and color-key transparency, configurable font, different window styles."
Great feedback and something I have been concerned about myself. I'm considering adjusting the higher tiers so the cost per license is more consistent.
I hope it didn't come across as negative, it was just something I noticed and wondered if other people saw the same thing, or if I was just being nitpicky.
I hope your project reaches funding, this looks like a really cool idea
Kickstarter doesn't let you change your rewards after others have already pledged, but I am going to find a way to ensure that all reward levels will be offered enough licenses to average $10/license.
<meta name="keywords" content="googun googun googun googun googun googun googun googun gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay seattle seattle seattle seattle hot hot hot hot hot hot hot hot hot Tshirts t shirt t shirt t shirt t shirt t-shirt t-shirt t-shirt coffee coffee coffee coffee coffee">
Yeah, I look at all out-of-the-blue mysteries with no context as the start of viral campaigns now, they've overused that trope. I can't even get interested in this because I don't want to waste time on something that turns out to be a sales pitch, which would sort of suck if anything ever ends up being genuine.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I think a lot of people looked at Color with very skeptical eyes. It seemed like a really strange concept (to me, at least, and I'm sure others) at the time that garnered a great deal of attention out of nowhere (not to mention an enviable amount of cash). I think some people wanted to believe it would be the next big "social thing", and they looked at the folks behind it and thought "Well, there's no way people wont eat this up!".
I mean, they made headlines by blowing a ridiculous amount of cash on a domain name. Why weren't they making headlines with how solid of a concept they had?
Why were we talking about their valuation, and how seemingly overblown it was, instead of how revolutionary their product was going to be, and how it was going to change / disrupt / whatever some existing market or industry?
Having an amazing set of people at the helm of a ship that no one seems interested in boarding doesn't do you much good.
I suspect that the investors thought the worst case scenario was an aqui-hire of a highly-credentialed team, at a value close to the cash invested. And likely with enough preferences to return the entire acquisition to the investors.
While this was an erroneous assumption, I can see how this may have contributed to a perception of lower risk to the investors.
What they seemed to ignore was that stuffing a very early consumer startup with a ton of cash and a lot of hype to live up to might have contributed to the failure. Instead of giving them resources to figure out the space, investors contributed rope with which the company could hang itself.
I think any attempt at curing cancer is to be commended, but the fact that they open with this being "The Cancer that killed Steve Jobs" kinds of turns me off...
They name drop him at least 3 times, and it just seems like they're going off his name to help get their (completely admirable and entirely worthwhile) project funded.
The sad fact is, it will probably be more effective than any approach that doesn't leverage someones famous name.
Apple should fund it, however, because of how much of an impact Jobs had on their success and organization as a whole. Funding research to prevent other people from suffering like he did seems like a socially responsible thing to do, especially for a company with a war chest larger than some economies.
The thing is to look at science as an antagonist to "pop culture" is a reductionist mindset. And would it be rather poetic as well as great market savvy for them to sponsor something like this?
lol :P i love it when people like you express your wildest evil thoughts openly - but the fact is i couldn't find any viable solution to filter nude images in real-time for a project so i decided write this up using existing algorithms on the web. if you could suggest any better solution would be great
It's nothing to do with the language, it's to do with the threading model. It's a much argued about topic nowadays: one approach give peace of mind to programmers, and the other one gives peace of mind to users.
In the Chasm of Fate, after you defeat B'Joril the TimeMaster, you're supposed to get 1 piece of Titan class armor, and a random roll for 1-3 Peacock Plumes, but every time my group only gets the armor, and never any Peacock Plumes.
The devs really rushed this one out. I can't believe they expect people to pay 12 dollars a month for this.
It is proof that they are not using a non-reversible hash to store it in their database.
They could be storing it using a reversible encryption algorithm, of which there are many, and they are not considered "insecure".
Or, in the worst case, they could be storing it unsecured. It's definitely a possibility.
It's poor practice, for sure, to email someone a plaintext password, as email itself is prone to numerous attack vectors.
But given the overall lack of evidence and insight into their back end, you don't have enough to draw either conclusion.