I find it interesting how focused this article is in the "traditional" male gender role. It doesn't even touch the subject of different friendship types and relations when involving other genders than 'male'.
Without denying that sex has it's toll in the physical (duh) and psychological treats of a person, I do believe that traditional gender roles are the only roles taken into account for this article, making a great deal of assumptions on how males act towards friendship.
Does anyone know if there are studies such as the ones mentioned in the article that take into account a less black and white view of gender roles or that digs into other types of friendships?
I would be worried about the health of your computer. My work's T420 lenovo doesn't seem to lag THAT much, in fact, I hadn't noticed much of it until I got to read the comments here...
Scratch that, just after I wrote last paragraph I opened the site on Chrome (Instead of FF) and it lags heavily in there. I don't know if it might be because some FF plug ins block third party things like facebook connect and Google analytics...
I find it weird, the difference of fps between Chrome and FF with this site is HUGE in my computer.
So, if your home is out of energy you're locked out? I don't know how common that is in USA. But where I live, you'd be trapped under an hours-long storm while waiting for the power to come back during rain season.
That is correct. Facebook campaigns don't work for actual conversions. But it is in large part due to the casual way most users navigate the website; which is not going to change. Fake accounts or not you will get a large amount of users that have no relation to your product 'liking' it.
This is not necessarily bad. I am not sure if this still applies to USA because of the people that have been leaving Facebook lately. But in my country (Mexico), Facebook is used to give 'presence'. We don't expect any actual ROI or new customers directly from Facebook campaigns, but a user looking at a high number of likes does make a difference in trust perception.
That said, this problem is not present in Google because of the way they present the ads and the way users are navigating when they find them. I believe for this reason Google will always have a great advantage over Facebook and although we won't stop spending a small amount of money to keep a higher amount of likes in Facebook it won't be near as much as we do for Google.
For the same reason, that Facebook's reaction to ads is based in the way users navigate the website, I don't think Facebook will never get a ROI similar to Google.
I was waiting to find an article clearly speaking about this; which I think is the elephant in the room when it comes to female tech founders.
The issue, as it points out, is not being able to hack; or being able to learn, etc. Society has been proven over and over that females can do just as good as males.
The issue, I think, is purely social. Most people still see women with through a veil of prejudices, and this will only change with time as more women venture into that part of the industry.
Founding is barely about learning how to code. It's more about human relationships and networking. And as long as the image of a female entrepreneur keeps been looked down at, this problem will keep rising. May be it's not as easy to see in USA but I've seen it clearly in my country (Mexico) in small-medium businesses conventions and with clients.
Congratulations Dave, very nice work. I've been toying with the idea of starting to develop many small mobile and web apps during the course of next year, not really looking for revenue but for the sake of creating tools and games that might be useful for someone while helping me not to get creatively stuck.
Thanks a lot! I totally recommend it, a confidence builder if nothing else. My site is down at the moment so here is a mirror on pastebin http://pastebin.com/gxJyGKhG
...I agree? It seems like you're saying that compromising your email account right now won't allow anyone access to all the sites you've signed up with it, which is pretty much incorrect.
Yes.
But it also, I think, makes it easier to follow certain attack patterns that are already known and commonly used.
For example, setting an email forwarder to an account an attacker controls in most cases won't even be noticed. I think it opens more attack vectors than the good it could do to have this kind of integration rather than just a password manager.
Giving more control to a single manager (in this case an email account) also means you will have to set greater security standards for it. For example, are you going to type your password (which also controls all your accounts) to your friend's, school's, airport's, etc's computer that could be infected?
Passwords are insecure? Of course they are insecure. That's why we are trying to implement two factor authentication. But having 1 account with 2 factor auth controlling 20 accounts with 1 factor auth isn't exactly helping. At all.
> For example, setting an email forwarder to an account an attacker controls in most cases won't even be noticed.
Setting a forwarder where? You can do that now too. It's exactly as safe as what we have now.
> I think it opens more attack vectors than the good it could do to have this kind of integration rather than just a password manager.
I disagree. As long as you have password resets sent by email, whoever has access to your email has access to your accounts.
> Giving more control to a single manager (in this case an email account) also means you will have to set greater security standards for it.
Again, that's exactly what everyone already does.
> For example, are you going to type your password (which also controls all your accounts) to your friend's, school's, airport's, etc's computer that could be infected?
No, I don't log in to my email from anywhere that's not my device, and it has 2fa enabled.
> having 1 account with 2 factor auth controlling 20 accounts with 1 factor auth isn't exactly helping. At all.
How is it not helping? Now you have all your accounts requiring two-factor auth to log in, rather than just some of them. You also only have one server to secure, which will presumably be run by people whose sole job is to secure that server.
I'm glad you have a portable device which you can use to access your email. Not every user does.
But you're right. Please use and implement candy security structures.
I feel like you didn't read anything I've written. You haven't even addressed my main point, you just came in here and spewed FUD about this solution without really discussing anything.
Well, I think we are talking about two completely different points and, per your past response, that nothing I've said really makes sense to you. Of course I think the solution is useful from a UX perspective, it's awesome. But from a security point of view you are leaving all the security out in a single layer and whenever that layer (single email address) fails, then there's nothing left.
>How is it not helping? Now you have all your accounts requiring two-factor auth to log in, rather than just some of them. You also only have one server to secure, which will presumably be run by people whose sole job is to secure that server.
Yes, you are left with only one server to secure, and yes it is most likely run by people who are good at it. But this is exactly why it's a good example of candy security: As soon as you get past the first wall, there is nothing else stopping you from getting access to everything. And you can't really presume all users will have double auth activated, nor that they will be as cautious with that single set of credentials will be.
I think it is less secure because it centralizes all the security in one single layer. AKA the email address you are using to handle the credentials. Once you have access to that email, then you have access to everything. Contrary to what happens now that at least raises more flags when your accounts start getting password changes, etc.
