Magical Sailor Fuku

The stupidity out there ceases to amaze me. More so when hardly anyone notices or questions it.

Exhibit number one: Barnyard

I recently sat down to watch this movie because I was bored and unmotivated to do much else. It was hard to not notice that some of the cows acted like males and had male voices. That's right... All of the cows couldn't be differentiated as anything but female in appearance and there weren't bulls like there should have been. It's certainly a nice way to confuse the younger audience when they learn that all cows are female and the males are the bulls. I don't think that a movie directed at children should relieve the creators of having to use their intelligence. It makes me wonder about the general population if stuff like this manages to make it to the public.

Exhibit number two: The news

It's one thing to show raw footage and it's quite another to be indiscriminate about reporting certain details. Yeah, I saw some wonderful news the other day... About some of the most popular passwords used. You know, the kind that are supposed to offer a person some security.

...

Right... So the news that they bring gives people a good idea about what kind of passwords to try if they want to get to something that someone else has protected from unauthorized access. The funny thing is that one of those passwords, one that I've used since around '00, happened to be one of those passwords. I've changed it now, of course... Sheesh. And I had thought that the news couldn't get any dumber.

Exhibit number three: HD commercials

Oh, these commercials are rich. They try to advertise higher quality pictures to an audience that primarily uses televisions that can't generate such quality. The only people that can see the better quality are those that already own an HD television. And those people probably got one because the simple idea of HD being better and/or new had sold them.

So, does anyone else have anything to share that they've seen on TV and was stupid? You know, things that are contrary to logic and common sense rather than personal preferences.

Laundry detergent commercials.

They always have a scene in which the "New Great Detergent" is compared to a "regular detergent". The problem here is that there is no such thing as a regular detergent on the market. Well, at least I've never seen a brandless gray box that says "Regular Detergent" in the mall. So basically they're advertising their product by comparing it to something that doesn't exist.

This rule also applies to any kind of cleaning product ads that use this strategy.

City College commercials take the cake of stupidity for me. A woman is driving a car and it breaks down. She gets out, looks at the camera and says "I should have gone to college..."

and that's it, dumbest thing I've seen in a long time.

Also, with the "Brand X detergent" thing, that's to save money, if they actually used another product's name in the commercial, they would have to pay one to use it's name on TV and two to put it below their product.

I rarely watch television, but last time I did I saw this...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-RJUUJ ... ed&search=


...

..

.

O_o

Xiao wrote:City College commercials take the cake of stupidity for me. A woman is driving a car and it breaks down. She gets out, looks at the camera and says "I should have gone to college..."

that reminds me of these (anyone from the Chicago area has known these since the 90s...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL1QUmeEZQc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-vjD3ih2dk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK8BqzNRSwA&NR=1

Also, with the "Brand X detergent" thing, that's to save money, if they actually used another product's name in the commercial, they would have to pay one to use it's name on TV and two to put it below their product.

Oh, I perfectly realise that. However, it doesn't change the absurdity factor of these commercials.
To be honest, I have seen a few of those ads that used other brand products. They just blurred the name.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:
Exhibit number two: The news

It's one thing to show raw footage and it's quite another to be indiscriminate about reporting certain details. Yeah, I saw some wonderful news the other day... About some of the most popular passwords used. You know, the kind that are supposed to offer a person some security.

...

Right... So the news that they bring gives people a good idea about what kind of passwords to try if they want to get to something that someone else has protected from unauthorized access. The funny thing is that one of those passwords, one that I've used since around '00, happened to be one of those passwords. I've changed it now, of course... Sheesh. And I had thought that the news couldn't get any dumber.

Okay, so let me see if I get this. They do a story where they show the most common passwords that people use for things that may link to information that would allow people to get, say, access to credit card accounts or private E-mails. That's dumb somehow? There had to be something more to it to actually call it dumb, because from what you described, I have no idea what you find dumb about it.

They're reporting on what people who might want to try to access other people's accounts likely already know. You saw it and changed your password, which really sounded like the entire point of it. If you had a password that is among the most commonly used passwords, then it sounds like the entire purpose of the story was to tell people about it to change it. It's precisely because it's a matter of security that it doesn't sound dumb at all.

The whole point of a password is that it's supposed to be a secret, regardless of how it's presented. It's not like that many knew what passwords were popular to begin with; they could have left people to imagine what could have been popular and leave it to them to use their common sense to choose one that others may not think of, or much of. By giving the information to the general public, most of whom wouldn't have even thought of investigating and gathering the information (or even know how to go about doing that) needed to find out, it leaves a window open for anyone adventurous and/or willing enough to start trying those passwords. And those that had any of the passwords mentioned, and were aware that they had been mentioned, would be inclined to change theirs and thus be needlessly inconvenienced.

Does it reveal anyone's password in specific? No; but deduction is a way of figuring out a password and it can be used to get either the likely or unlikely suspects out of the way. In the end, the point is that passwords for security should remain in private and not public, and why in the world should news give us that kind of news? It's not exactly what I'd call a good filler, or even a good alternative to the constant influx of bad news.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:The whole point of a password is that it's supposed to be a secret, regardless of how it's presented. It's not like that many knew what passwords were popular to begin with; they could have left people to imagine what could have been popular and leave it to them to use their common sense to choose one that others may not think of, or much of. By giving the information to the general public, most of whom wouldn't have even thought of investigating and gathering the information needed to find out (much less know how to), it leaves a window open for anyone adventurous and/or willing enough to start trying those passwords. And those that had any of the passwords mentioned, and were aware that they had been mentioned, would be inclined to change and thus be needlessly inconvenienced.

The whole point of a password is to keep things secure. If someone can pick a password off of a list of what the majority of people use without having to know anything about the person whose information they're trying to get, then it's not very secure. It's like a security door that is left unlocked. It doesn't matter how big a door is, if it's easy to get in to, it's not keeping things secure.

You say that not many people would know that information. You're absolutely right, but that's the entire point of the news, to tell the public things they probably don't know. But you're confusing the general public not knowing with the information not being available to those who want it. Unless the reporters pulled it out of thin air (which is perfectly possible), the information is out there. Before the story, the people who knew it were likely to be the people who were willing to use the information. The information has to be there for the reporters to get.

Again, a password isn't secure if someone can guess it without knowing anything about a person. What that story was designed to do was inform people who actually had those passwords that they were common. You're right, the general public wouldn't know that information, that's the entire point of the news, to inform the public of information that they don't already know. You went and changed your password after you saw it, so in essence, it did it's job. The inconvenience of having to go through and change your password isn't really anything compared to the problems someone would have if their information was stolen.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:In the end, the point is that passwords for security should remain in private and not public, and why in the world should news give us that kind of news? It's not exactly what I'd call a good filler, or even a good alternative to the constant influx of bad news.

Why should that story have been done? Because it's security information that the general public in the area wouldn't know. You're right, it's not good filler, because it's not filler at all. Filler in broadcast journalism is some clip where a duck crosses a street or where kids take extra time deliver the weather report instead of the main guy, not a clip about security information that most people won't know.

So I don't really see how it's a dumb thing to air. It just looks like you didn't like the minor inconvenience of having to go change your password when you saw just how common it was. The fact is, that kind of normal information is available if people want to find it, and they just did their job of telling people which passwords were common.

I mean no offense to you, it just doesn't seem stupid at all to air.

I think it's dumb because, other than those that can get a good idea of people's passwords in general, revealing common passwords helps with deductions. At first someone, even a person that's no stranger to cracking passwords, can try the common passwords and get them out of the way in their deductions. Then, once the common passwords are common knowledge, they may instead decide to not try those words, thus reducing their attempts (even if a smidgen), because a bunch of people may no longer use them and thus the chances of them being someone's password would be lessened. So, because it can help with deductions, however great or small, I think it's dumb. Besides, it's simply better to just keep on recommending types of passwords to use (such as a mix of letters and numbers instead of actual words and phrases), as far as security is concerned. That way there's no aid with deductions at all. Sure, you can deduce that words and phrases are out, but what does that leave anyone with? Getting lucky with guessing any amount and combination of letters and numbers? Woo...

As a sidenote, I hadn't been inconvenienced. I had simply liked that password. It also came with an amusing experience when I had to ask help to tell me what my password had been, after I hadn't used my account for a while. So, right now, I have one that I finally decided on (for now) until I can come up with a better one. An amusing password makes it easier for me to remember it and stuff.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:I think it's dumb because, other than those that can get a good idea of people's passwords in general, revealing common passwords helps with deductions. At first someone, even a person that's no stranger to cracking passwords, can try the common passwords and get them out of the way in their deductions. Then, once the common passwords are common knowledge, they may instead decide to not try those words, thus reducing their attempts (even if a smidgen), because a bunch of people may no longer use them and thus the chances of them being someone's password would be lessened. So, because it can help with deductions, however great or small, I think it's dumb. Besides, it's simply better to just keep on recommending types of passwords to use (such as a mix of letters and numbers instead of actual words and phrases), as far as security is concerned. That way there's no aid with deductions at all. Sure, you can deduce that words and phrases are out, but what does that leave anyone with? Getting lucky with guessing any amount and combination of letters and numbers? Woo...

So, if I get you right, you're saying that it's dumb because once people know the common passwords and thus don't set them as their own password, those who are trying to break in thus won't try them and will limit the number of possible passwords that they try, thus making them something like one millionth of a percent more likely to guess the correct password? I hope I misunderstood you, because that sounded absolutely asinine, it's so convoluted. I could follow you on them showing more people the common passwords, but that's just... wow. Revealing them means that the people who actually have those passwords and saw it would see that it's common and more of a security risk than another, less common password, which would be harder to get.

Yeah, they could recommend mixing numbers and letters, but what are the chances that you would have changed your password if they had done that, as opposed to flashing all of the common passwords on the screen? My money is on slim to none, with it heavily favoring none. That's because it's something everyone who has access to such services has likely been told multiple times already. Telling them in a 30 second story isn't going to do any more to make them do it. As you have admitted, showing them the passwords made you change it, and as such has proven to be more effective.

No, you didn't misunderstand me. I don't think. I base my opinion on the idea of revealing passwords, stuff that's supposed to be secret, not its practical uses. Sure, it can help, but it didn't help me any: it just made me paranoid because a password that I've used for seven years (and thus had been reliable) could possibly be compromised. Hey, you can rarely know if you'll be the unfortunate victim, but people like me like to have at least a few minor securities in their life.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:No, you didn't misunderstand me. I don't think. I base my opinion on the idea of revealing passwords, stuff that's supposed to be secret, not its practical uses. Sure, it can help, but it didn't help me any: it just made me paranoid because a password that I've used for seven years (and thus had been reliable) could possibly be compromised. Hey, you can rarely know if you'll be the unfortunate victim, but people like me like to have at least a few minor securities in their life.

I'm sure getting a security system makes people more conscious that they could be robbed, but that doesn't mean that they don't benefit at all from having one, so I see it that way, knowing that your password was a common one and changing it into something I would assume wasn't as common would mean that it would be harder to crack if, at some point, someone tried to. So it would seem that, whether you realize it or not, it did help.

Speaking of stupid things on television (in a thinly veiled attempt at getting back on topic and attempting to agree to disagree), ESPN shows card games. Why? Seriously, what's exciting about watching people play cards for 8 hours? What's fun by seeing a bunch of pasty guys throw plastic chips on the table? It's not a sport, it's not entertaining, it shouldn't be television. It has made half of the kids in college into gambling addicts who think they are going to become millionaires by playing cards.

You mean.... there's anything not stupid on TV?

And passwords? You should never have a password, but go for a passphrase or cipher. And word that exists in a dictionary (English or foreign) is not even in the remotest sense secure.

And then, of course, avoid using things that are easy to get/guess about someone (birthdates, pet/child names, ssns, measurements (don't set your locker combo to 32-20-33, for instance ^.~)). They're even less secure than dictionary words.

Mix case (upper and lower), numerals, and special symbols when necessary (or allowed by the system you're protecting).

Here's a few good examples to base ideas on (obviously, don't use these exact ones :p)

jrrt^1954~LotR (JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was published in 1954, and you use an anime wink emoticon in there as well)

tNN--So55Ms (the Nekkid Nikkou -- Slayer of 55Million spammers)

1rrw2ZU (I really really want to zap you)

GWB=t1wh8sUSA (George W Bush is the one who hates America)

And so on...

And no offense, but if you've been using the same password for seven years, it likely has been compromised already.

Moonlit Naiad wrote:You mean.... there's anything not stupid on TV?

Well, some things aren't stupid... That's just my opinion, though. I'm more in favor of defining most stuff on TV as junk and worthless. I particularly like the History and Discovery channels and such.

tNN--So55Ms (the Nekkid Nikkou -- Slayer of 55Million spammers)

I thought I bred them... O.o

And no offense, but if you've been using the same password for seven years, it likely has been compromised already.

Nevars! I only used it for one place and nothing ever went wrong. Which is especially good since monthly payments are involved. It's simply a case of no one happening to bother me, I'm guessing.

Another stupid thing on TV... Reality shows. I think that pretty much says it all. <.<;