Live data from Hacker News

Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

forum.bodybuilding.com

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#121
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nasty but it's a drink that's blended to taste reasonably bland, designed for drinking alcohol not designed for enjoying the taste. Its target market is people who don't want anything particularly interesting. Don't get me wrong, it's much nicer than a £20 bottle of blended stuff, but nowhere near good enough to justify the price tag, and is the huge majority of scotch drinkers (at least a huge majority of t…

What's the blended scotch you prefer to Johnnie Walker? I tried to avoid the trap of saying "yeah but you can get Springbank for half the price".

Check out Dewars White Label - http://www.epinions.com/reviews/pr-Dewars_White_Label_Scotch... One of the better blended scotches I've had.

Granted it's pompous but if you're going to spend the money a single malt is probably a good investment. Stop by a quality store and they'll be able to pick one out to fit your tastes.

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#122
post #109
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that's utter bullshit. Blue Label is a perfectly delicious scotch.

It's not nasty but it's a drink that's blended to taste reasonably bland, designed for drinking alcohol not designed for enjoying the taste. Its target market is people who don't want anything particularly interesting. Don't get me wrong, it's much nicer than a £20 bottle of blended stuff, but nowhere near good enough to justify the price tag, and is the huge majority of scotch drinkers (at least a huge majority of t…

So from what I get good blended is more expensive than good pure/single malt?

I have never been able to appreciate blended as much as I appreciate pure malt, but my sample is really limited. My favorite so far is Glenlivet 18 years.

edit: pure->pure/single

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing about your special page for reporting privacy holes would not change my decision to post it here. I think more good will come when media picks it up and some Facebook users realize that a company with your record of terrible privacy decisions and incompetence should not be used for posting anything private or even at all. If you were a startup stretched for resources or if this hole could've been exploited to…

Ah, just realized you're the OP. I don't think there's anything particularly irresponsible about posting an already-public disclosure to HN or other aggregators. It's the first person posting it publicly without first privately disclosing that I find irresponsible.

May I ask for your opinion on the $500 bounty issue that was mentioned?

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#124
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nasty but it's a drink that's blended to taste reasonably bland, designed for drinking alcohol not designed for enjoying the taste. Its target market is people who don't want anything particularly interesting. Don't get me wrong, it's much nicer than a £20 bottle of blended stuff, but nowhere near good enough to justify the price tag, and is the huge majority of scotch drinkers (at least a huge majority of t…

So from what I get good blended is more expensive than good pure/single malt? I have never been able to appreciate blended as much as I appreciate pure malt, but my sample is really limited. My favorite so far is Glenlivet 18 years. edit: pure->pure/single

Exact comparison is of course subjective, but I would prefer JW Blue over the cheapest of single malts, but I no-where near 10x as much. And, I would rather buy a £25 of Glenfiddich 12yo (picked because it is available, in my experience, in pretty much every supermarket and bar in the UK), even if the JW Blue was the same price.

So, good blended is more expensive than as-good single malt - indeed, it is also more expensive than great single malts. The only bottles I'll buy more than once are ones I personally consider great, and for me that's rarely less than £50 and never more than £500.

But, really, price isn't equatable to quality even within a category. You can't say that a £100 bottle will be twice as good as a £50 bottle, nor even that it will be better. The reason for spending more on a bottle is not that more expensive is better, just that, the wider your price range, the more options you have - and naturally, some of the more expensive bottles are better than some of the cheaper ones, and visa versa. If I couldn't afford it I could be perfectly happy with a lower top-end, and actually my second favourite bottle right now does cost around £50.

Two things to note: as with anything subjective, anyone can have a completely different opinion. Some people may genuinely love the JW Blue, enough to justify its cost. Most people who drink it don't, and they either haven't tried nicer whisky, or they are fooled by the price into deciding how good it is without paying attention to the drink itself, or (often) they don't really want to be whisky drinkers, and are doing it for the image not for the taste. But just because the majority are like that, doesn't mean there aren't people who, for their own tastes, are correct in loving it.

Also worth keeping in mind than JW Blue is notorious for being overpriced, don't think of it as representative of blended whisky. There are even nicer drinks in the JW range itself, and Blue is, at least by price, the top of their standard range. Green, for example, is considered by many to be nicer than Blue - not just better value, but nicer ignoring price. (I disagree on that, but at £30 it certainly is much, much better value.)

JW Blue is not whisky makers thinking "how can we make the best scotch", it is businessmen thinking "how can we market this", the drink itself is an afterthought.

edit: Personally I will always think single malts are much, much more attractive. But, blends can be good. JW, instead of trying to play with the blend to create an interesting and unique drink, tries hard to create a bland drink, with no interesting notes, a drink that will be acceptable rather than amazing to as many people as possible. It's not that they tried and failed, being smooth and boring is the purpose of the drink.

edit2: Am I just going on way too much about this?

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, just realized you're the OP. I don't think there's anything particularly irresponsible about posting an already-public disclosure to HN or other aggregators. It's the first person posting it publicly without first privately disclosing that I find irresponsible.

May I ask for your opinion on the $500 bounty issue that was mentioned?

from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3321366:

> I think having a bug bounty program is actually a lot better than the vast majority of sites / vendors that don't even have a whitehat [aka responsible] disclosure program, let alone a bug bounty program. It's worth noting that this is just the base bounty - I've seen us pay out a lot more for good discoveries. $500 is also the base that Google and Mozilla offer for their programs (http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2010/11/rewarding-w..., http://www.mozilla.org/security/bug-bounty.html). What would be a good price, do you think? I'm not hooked in enough to know what black market prices are like for bugs like this.

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#126
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that's utter bullshit. Blue Label is a perfectly delicious scotch.

It kind of is the Bose Audio of scotch; you can get much better for the price, regardless of how delicious it is. (I'm pretty much done with scotch these days, though --- tastes like burnt trees --- so I'd defer to strong disagreement).

> It kind of is the Bose Audio of scotch

Does that mean it's the favorite whipping boy of people who like to think of themselves as connoisseurs?

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things take a while to fall out of CDN cache, I forget what the TTL is these days but it should be reasonable.

Understandable. I'll check again, a bit later. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

About 6:20 since deletion, and the images are still accessible at their akamaihd.net addresses. I'll have a look again tomorrow.

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#128
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So from what I get good blended is more expensive than good pure/single malt? I have never been able to appreciate blended as much as I appreciate pure malt, but my sample is really limited. My favorite so far is Glenlivet 18 years. edit: pure->pure/single

Exact comparison is of course subjective, but I would prefer JW Blue over the cheapest of single malts, but I no-where near 10x as much. And, I would rather buy a £25 of Glenfiddich 12yo (picked because it is available, in my experience, in pretty much every supermarket and bar in the UK), even if the JW Blue was the same price. So, good blended is more expensive than as-good single malt - indeed, it is also more exp…

response2: Are you kidding?

Just a quick note though that if you're opening up the field to whiskey in general, the people who find Johnnie Walker especially drinkable are probably better served by moving to a more drinkable whiskey category in general. Bourbon is as forward as I get these days, and I strongly strongly prefer rye. Either option is bound to be much cheaper than Blue Label, and if you read up on (say) Bourbon and get a little spendy (but not Blue Label spendy), some of the bottles out there are revelatory.

(I say as I tuck into some Black Maple for an evening of Rails dev).

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of is the Bose Audio of scotch; you can get much better for the price, regardless of how delicious it is. (I'm pretty much done with scotch these days, though --- tastes like burnt trees --- so I'd defer to strong disagreement).

> It kind of is the Bose Audio of scotch Does that mean it's the favorite whipping boy of people who like to think of themselves as connoisseurs?

Yes, it means that too.

Re: Facebook security hole allows viewing of private photos

#130
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exact comparison is of course subjective, but I would prefer JW Blue over the cheapest of single malts, but I no-where near 10x as much. And, I would rather buy a £25 of Glenfiddich 12yo (picked because it is available, in my experience, in pretty much every supermarket and bar in the UK), even if the JW Blue was the same price. So, good blended is more expensive than as-good single malt - indeed, it is also more exp…

response2: Are you kidding? Just a quick note though that if you're opening up the field to whiskey in general , the people who find Johnnie Walker especially drinkable are probably better served by moving to a more drinkable whiskey category in general. Bourbon is as forward as I get these days, and I strongly strongly prefer rye. Either option is bound to be much cheaper than Blue Label, and if you read up on (say)…

I've literally never tried a good Bourbon - just cheap, cheap stuff when out drinking in America, never tried anything that's supposed to be really nice.

I used to have the scotch-snob assumption that it must, but I've had enough people whose opinions I value call me an idiot. I will at some point give a few a go, but just haven't got round to it yet.

Post reply on HN