jSnively

volcan said:

jSnively said:

volcan said:

Soli said:

You're not following if you think I mentioned anything about passwords "being sent in clear text."

An assumption on my part. How exactly do you believe hackers decrypt MD5 passwords? I want to know because that is what I use.

MD5 has been unsafe for quite a few years now.

Yeah well three failed log ins and you are locked out.

If you have a dump of the data, you don't need to try and brute force a login. You create the collision first with the offline copy and you login first try ; )

I'm closing this thread. We appreciate and welcome feedback, but it has dominated the thread in an unfortunate way. I think we have said all we're going to say on the matter. I left most posts intact because I think Mike has provided some valuable insight into our process.

That said, I'm not going to just let people heckle our editorial staff. If you want to continue the discussion, please do not hesitate to send either me or Mike a PM.

Ok, thread closed.

Political Outsider is the forum for you.

AppleZulu said:

altivec88 said:

Wow.  Some of you guys need to get off your high horse.   Fake news?  Really?   You guys come to a rumour site and complain about getting "fake news".  Rumours are based on speculation.  If that is something that bothers you then here is some advice, stay away from rumour sites.   I don't think we need the internet police crying about fake news here.

The facts remain "Apple re-assigned the router team" and to this point "Apple has not denied the end of life of these products even though it was heavily publicized that they are".  Based on those two facts, my conclusion matches those of Appleinsider and every other publication.  That is, Its highly probable that Apple is done with routers.  You are free to believe what you want.  If you need Apple to announce "we are done with routers" at one of their keynotes in order for you to believe it, then that's good for you.

I expect speculation in the comments. I expect speculation in the articles, too, but maybe not speculation written as though it is fact. As far as Apple not denying rumors, it is clearly in their nature to mostly neither confirm nor deny rumors, rendering any given lack of a denial to have little meaning. I'm pretty sure that's their intent.

Please keep in mind, Neil our EIC, worked with dead trees at The Sun in Florida; a paper that just won a Pulitzer. He has an honest-to-goodness degree in Journalism from a prestigious school. Mike is a veteran Apple reporter -- while you may see him as the "new guy" around these parts, he lead up the team at MacNN for years before they shut down (due to no fault of his own).

Even though we're a rumor site, we jump through a lot of traditional journalistic hoops because we want to make sure what we're saying is factually accurate. Doesn't mean we're immune from a screw-up or error every now and again, but we work very hard to ensure that what we post is as factual as possible, given the nature of the rumor mill. We want people to know that if they read something on AI we stand behind it. If we make an error, yeah please point it out, we will work to correct it.

I've been encouraging the editors to be more active on these forums, because I think the interaction is good for everyone, but please don't jump down the editor's throats and question their credentials. It makes it my job of encouraging them to interact very difficult. We want positive change 'round these parts.

nht said:

...

Actually it was dismissive and without seeing the data no one has any idea whether or not it was effective.

I understand "without seeing the data no one has any idea whether or not it was effective.", but that is beyond the scope of what we're going to divulge here. Partly because it's a fairly complex mash-up of metrics, but also because that gets into numbers in a way we don't want to discuss publicly. At some point you just have to trust we aren't making arbitrary decisions. If I wanted to be dismissive, then I could have just told everyone to go pound sand, or let everyone complain into the void.

nht said:

The only statistic that really matters is revenue. I don't think having a troll friendly forum increases your revenues but your servers so your call.

Actually, this is wrong. The forums are a loss-leader for us.

We keep them around because this community/site has been around for so long, and it's important to us. Too much of the internet has proven ephemeral, and we are in a unique position as an earlier Apple-focused news outlet to preserve some of that history. It's one of the reasons we work so hard to ensure our posts from the late 90s still load up in the current CMS, and links in from extremely old URLs still function. I recently saw a thread over on the MR forums about someone doing research on Apple for school, and they were looking for early apple news from before a certain date (I forget when exactly). Not only did a number of replies say "check AppleInsider", but guess what was one of the few still-running sites they could actually uncover working posts for? It made me smile.

It would be very easy for us to just go hands-off like newer endeavors and let the conversations happen primarily on social media. That's where the people actually are these days. But, we find value in building and expanding the community around the site, and we want as many people as possible to be a part of that. It's part of our DNA. I grew up on BBSs and small, localized internet communities; almost none of which are still around. That's why we're making changes, and that's why we're actively working to encourage more people to participate.

It's not always easy, and we're not always going to get everything right, but it's important to us that we foster a community of fun Apple lovin' people. Who knows, maybe now is the time we fail, maybe that desire is strange and outdated to begin with, but it's the place where we feel the most at home.

We hope that's true for most of you as well.