|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: But if I had to draw axes on a chess board, I'd draw them diagonally.
That seems odd. Perhaps you're swayed by the alternating colors of the squares and like most people, notice that the diagonals stand out more?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised no one said "rookfully" 
<sig notetoself="think of a better signature">
<first>Jim</first> <last>Meadors</last>
</sig>
|
|
|
|
|
"rookfully"
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
"orthogonally" ?
I know there is a question of "orthogonal to what", but I think it's pretty intuitive.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
The bishop as well as the rook move orthoganally, if you look at the two possible moves they can make.
Ok, it really depends on the chess board having square fields, but that is mostly the case or at least close enough to square not to make a difference.
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
"Orthogonally" was my first thought. So I have ploughed through the responses to see if anyone else had the same idea.
Wise men always agree and fools seldom differ.
|
|
|
|
|
Easy...
Go back to castle. Everybody knows castles don't move. Voila - problem solved! 
|
|
|
|
|
Of the available antonyms offered for diagonally by your run of the mill thesausrus I think perpendicular is pretty much spot on.
Considering you didn't have any problems with diagonally for the bishops move. Diagonally here is obviously in relation to the rectangular sides of the board and the same can be applies to perpendicular movement.
"Side-to-side for any two parallel sides of the board" wouldn't be an option I guess, too worday!
(The fact that each of these pairs of moves is in itself arranged in an orthogonal fashion is only attributed to the fact that most of the time the fields of a chess board are square.)
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck with the Knight then
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
Knight == "special". 
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Is there a generally accepted one-word description of how a rook moves?
No!
|
|
|
|
|
I thought not. Alas. 
|
|
|
|
|
Squarely?
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
I'm working on an article on ASP.NET 5 with AngularJS2 and Typescript, using Visual Studio. Planning to be publishing it this Sunday.
Good to be back in the game 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curious about the general consensus as to the value of implementing 2FA as I've read various articles that both praise and, well, not praise it. Seems like the effect is more about perception than any real security gains. I've used a custom system (not reliant on Forms Authentication or the Identity model) that works perfectly well. Is there a good reason to update that to use 2FA or something else entirely?
Thanks - as I said, just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
Many people have a tendency to use the same password across multiple accounts, including their personal email accounts.
If their personal password is cracked chances are that this information can then be used to search their emails, find out where they work, then hack their work accounts.
I know this is an extreme example but only yesterday I received an email from a user with their password and knowing them, the password was connected to their hobby, I am pretty sure I could hack their personal email account if I was unethical.
So I think two factor authentication is a good way to go - you can always use soft tokens, although to some extent that seems to slightly defeat the purpose of having two factor authentication, however a hardware token is probably the safest as long as it is not kept in the laptop bag.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Many people have a tendency to use the same password across multiple accounts, including their personal email accounts.
If their personal password is cracked chances are that this information can then be used to search their emails, find out where they work, then hack their work accounts.
I know this is an extreme example but only yesterday I received an email from a user with their password and knowing them, the password was connected to their hobby, I am pretty sure I could hack their personal email account if I was unethical.
Good point.
GuyThiebaut wrote: So I think two factor authentication is a good way to go - you can always use soft tokens, although to some extent that seems to slightly defeat the purpose of having two factor authentication, however a hardware token is probably the safest as long as it is not kept in the laptop bag.
Thanks. By "hard token" you mean a device of some description? That is good though a bit impractical for the site I was thinking about (probably be too expensive to implement given the user base).
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: By "hard token" you mean a device of some description?
Yes.
One thing to remember about security is that it is there to slow down the people who are trying to crack the security. Most security systems can be cracked given enough time.
The advantage of two factor authentication is that two pieces of information are required rather than just one password.
So standard authentication is safe under most circumstances, two factor authentication is just safer in that it slows down the attacker(not necessarily completely safe).
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
The system I mentioned asks for a user id (email), password and an 8 digit (unique) numerical code as well (assigned randomly when the user first registers). Not ideal or perfect but it is more than just a password. Used with good encryption and https I think it is reasonably secure or, at least, so far seems to be.
If someone is determined enough to crack a system, they probably will.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: an 8 digit (unique) numerical code as well (assigned randomly when the user first registers)
What about systems in which all subsequent log ins are a different 8 digit code based a certain time stamp? It would all depend on the hashing algorithm on how often some 8 digit number would be repeated by the algorithm.
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
Each time a new number is issued, the system check to ensure that to has not been used before; hence, each is unique. Works pretty well though I was thinking ti was a little cumbersome but, then, no more so than having to wait for a text message or email.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it can be cumbersome. I do use the Blizzard Authenticator for any and all Blizzard games that I might play. Seems to work pretty good. Now, my bank on the other hand, I have to wait for a text message to come across during my log in, and usually get the text message pretty quick.
I just wonder about the "cycle length" of the assumed cryptographic hash algorithm that may be used. It would be okay if the same code came up again, but at a far different time when generated I suppose.
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
That's basically Wish-It_Was Two-Factor[^] authentication, i.e. single-factor authentication done multiple times. It's not any more secure than plain single-factor authentication.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
