incant

About that 1800 players number. Based on posts by one of the developers, their server doesn't do any sort of calculation:

> Our server is basically 'dumb', it doesn't do anything in the sorts of processing bullet trajectory, player line of sight or any hit detection at all.

http://www.jc-mp.com/forums/index.php/topic,638.msg4783.html...

Unlike other games which run a full simulation on the server-side, their server (I presume) mostly routes messages between players. This means that the server trusts the client, which is rather poor design for a competitive multiplayer game. Once this is released, players will probably prefer a cheat-free game to a large-scale one.

This is, nevertheless, a fantastic mod. But these people have not yet solved the c10k-equivalent problem for massively multiplayer games.

(Presumably) Dan Kaminsky and Travis Goodspeed modified a bitcoin miner so that when it found a block, it would embed this tribute inside one of its unused field. (or rather, it embeds it in the transaction that is created as a part of generating a new block, the "coinbase".)

Most conferences that have encrypted WiFi will use PSK. Given the pre-shared key and observation of the handshake, you can calculate the session key and decrypt all traffic between a user and the access point. Compiling aircrack is no longer "grandmother" territory, but it is certainly "average linux geek" territory. Aircrack creates a virtual network interface, so you can even use it with Firesheep with no extra modification.

So turning off encryption is really not that bad when you consider that all it did was hog CPU and give people a false sense of security.

I don't think "user2" is claiming that the credit card information was sent in plaintext:

normally you ATLEAST enccrypt the securtity code, even if its ssl

That seems to refer to encrypting the CC security code before sending it over SSL using public key encryption, which is good practice if you subscribe to defence in depth. But it's nothing I'd get upset about.

So does this render DNSSEC effectively moot? It's not much good for authentication if the government can change the authoritative name servers for any .com/.org/.net domain and then sign that change.

But perhaps I don't understand how DNSSEC works. It seems unlikely that its designers would ignore that concern.

Edit: Or were they only concerned cache poisoning? There's been much talk of using DNSSEC to authenticate websites and even people. If I'm understanding DNSSEC correctly, it seems terribly misguided, even worse than the idea of "government key escrow".