So you think it's a WTF that a hugely popular site (which does take advertisements and sponsorships, as a quick look on the SO homepage will tell you) is making money?
the_nell_87
@the_nell_87
Best posts made by the_nell_87
Latest posts made by the_nell_87
-
RE: Looks like we're missing out
-
RE: This Gawker Thing
@blakeyrat said:
Then, this morning, I get a new email from Blizzard: "someone has requested a password reset on your account, click here to confirm." Someone's trying to break into my WOW account and doing a really sloppy job! (For those who don't play WOW: hackers go after WOW accounts all the time.) Next email? "Notice from Blizzard: we heard about the Gawker thing, and so we triggered a password reset on every Blizzard account." WTF, Blizzard! My password was never leaked, and even if it was, I use a different password for WOW than for everything else. PLUS, you've just emailed all your users something that looks exactly like a phishing message. (In fact, I'm still not 100% sure it wasn't a complex phishing attempt.)
Pretty sure it was. WoW phishing scams are getting more and more common. But normally pretty easy to spot. They normally consist of a message convincing you to "click here", which directs you to a site which only looks like the bnet login screen. In the years I've played WoW I've never had any e-mails directly from them about my account. On the few occasions one has looked relatively genuine, I've contacted them and said "is this e-mail actually from you?" and they've said no.
While some companies are likely to panic for no real reason, the fact that your e-mail (and that only) was leaked makes you a prime target for phishing scams like this IMO. I'm not registered with Gawker, and haven't received the e-mails you (apparently) did from Blizzard or LinkedIn.
-
RE: Simple question: Should I be bothered by...
Often "var" can be useful in C#, but when I see it used for every single object/variable it makes me cringe. Especially something simple like a boolean type.
Despite the fact that "var" in this case is essentially the same as "bool" surely it should be good practice to explicitly state the type?