It might have been his last game; he played like it was his first game.
LeBron James was, as Bill Simmons put it, perplexingly and indefensibly awful last night. 15 points, 7 assists, 6 rebounds betray how poorly he actually played, which was like it was his first playoff game ever and he was afraid of the moment. Perhaps the most telling sign of how bad he was: with time left in the fourth quarter, fans were walking out of what, let’s be honest, was most likely his last game in Cleveland this season and potentially (more so than ever) his last game as a Cleveland Cavalier.
After the game, LeBron had every right to be frustrated. Angry. Disappointed. Instead, after being asked about his game, he said, “Nah, I’m not disappointed. I’m never disappointed in my play. I feel like I could do more, but I’m not disappointed at all.”
No big deal. Easily the biggest game of the Cavs season in probably the most important season in the Cavs’ franchise, but hey, no big deal. He also added this gem:
I spoil a lot of people with my play. When you have a bad game here or there, you’ve had three bad games in a seven-year career, then it’s easy to point that out. So you got to be better.
I put a lot of pressure on myself to be out there and be the best player on the court, and when I’m not I feel bad for myself because I’m not going out there and doing the things I can do. But I don’t hang my head low or make any excuses about anything that may be going on, because that’s not the type of player or person I am.
A lot to digest here. First, it’s certainly been more than three bad games, but never on this stage and never because it seemed like he wasn’t even trying. Second, having a bad game is forgivable: everyone has bad nights. Putting in poor effort is never acceptable, and that’s what happened last night. (Back in 2007, the Indians had some bad nights in the playoffs, but I was never concerned with their effort like I am the Cavs’ or LeBron’s.)
(Sidenote: I’m currently watching a Rachel Nichols SportsCenter report about Cleveland’s “fragile state of mind” following that loss and anticipating a do-or-die game six. And game five was “no big deal.” Really?)
But the major implication here was that Cleveland fans are “spoiled”. Sure, I can see that. Here’s a franchise who’s never won a championship, whose intra-city sister franchises (the Indians and Browns) haven’t won since 1948 and 1964, respectively. But hey, LeBron’s been MVP twice in the last two years, right? The Cavs have put up 60-win seasons twice in the last two years, right? Isn’t that enough?
If you’re LeBron, all you have to say is “hey, I had a bad game”, or “hey, my elbow hurt”, or “someone switched my Nikes with REEBOKS!” Don’t blame the fans for expecting too much; don’t dismiss your poor play as no big deal.
Last year, the thing that got under my skin about this team is that there was this “One Goal” mantra where it always seemed like the players were thinking “which finger should I put my ring on? I know tradition is the ring finger, but I think it’d look sweet on my pinky” rather than “hey, Orlando’s making a lot of threes, maybe we should do something about — POINTER FINGER.” This year, the mantra is “All for One”, which I guess is supposed to mean that everyone on the team and in the city is working towards one goal. But what’s that goal really been: a championship or keeping LeBron happy?
If it ends up that the Cavs lose game 6, and LeBron leaves, it won’t just be another athlete in a long string of athletes to grow up in Cleveland, say how much they love it, become a superstar, and then promptly say “so long, Cleveland, it’s been real” before exiting. It’s kind of like how Packers fans must have felt last year when Favre signed with a division rival, only instead of leaving at the (what was supposed to be) the twilight of his career and completing his legacy, here’s a guy leaving in his prime after perhaps his worst game as a professional. It’s like if Obama was elected, then said “hahaha, I’m leaving for France, see you all on the flip.”
The best case scenario here is that LeBron and the Cavs win game 6 and 7, prolonging their existence in the playoffs, and making last night’s game just a minor blip on LeBron’s record. But let’s face it: after their showing last night, it’s an unlikely scenario.
Sometimes you’re not even looking for a blog topic and one just smacks you in the face.
I got a call from a cousin this evening who reported that both her e-mail and Facebook account had been hacked. I personally set up the e-mail account (circa 1999) with a very basic password. To this day it had not been changed, and a simple derivative of that password was used for her Facebook account. Thus, while I don’t know for sure how the accounts were hacked, I can infer that when one fell, the other did as well. This hacker had changed the passwords to both of her accounts, leaving her locked out.
I told my cousin how to go about regaining access to her accounts, and hung up the phone. But my mind dwelled a bit – for years, I’ve used the same password on most of my accounts. This password isn’t particularly complex (normally scores a medium when it goes through a password meter), but I’ve rested easy knowing that most account hacking comes through phishing these days, and I’m pretty smart about what I click.
It occurred to me though, that my publicly accessible username to many sites is the same I use to log in, making a potential password cracker’s job half as hard (if you’re trying to get into a lock, it’s hard if you don’t have the key, but it’s even harder when you don’t know where the lock is).
Thus, there were a lot of things working against me: searching my name in Google yields at least 4 pages of search results related to my “web presence” (sorry about the word choice, Mike), I used the same password across most of those services, and that password wasn’t incredibly strong to begin with. That doesn’t even account for the possibility of another RockYou (and let’s face it: the odds for are much greater than the odds against).
So I decided it was time, and set about changing my passwords to all my major accounts (the ones I really care about, anyway). I started with Facebook, moved to my e-mail and Twitter and then my banks.
(Seriously, how messed up is my thought process? And make fun of me if you must, but you know your priorities are exactly the same.)
So I got to my online credit card account. I have a Starbucks Duetto Visa, which is administered by Chase, so I went to chase.com, logged in, and after noticing one of my phone numbers was no longer correct and fixing it, set about changing my password. I chose my password, entered my old one, and entered the new one twice.
Here was the response:
I thought I must have done something wrong at first, but sure enough, after closer inspection of the password change form, I found:
What. The. Crap. I understand the fourth one. The last one doesn’t really make a lot of sense since Chase doesn’t enforce a regular password change anyway. I can understand the second one, but while good practice, the fact that you’re limited like that hurts your password’s security statistically. My confusion in this post, however, is mostly directed at bullet points 1 and 3 here.
Firstly, let’s cover what those two points imply. This means (in all likelihood, anyway) that either my Chase password is stored in plaintext in whatever database they use, or it’s two-way encrypted: that is, given an unencrypted password it can create a ciphertext, and given that same ciphertext it can reproduce your original password.
Non-developers may wonder what the alternative here is: the alternative is a hash, which is a one-way encryption algorithm that, given a plaintext password, can easily make a ciphertext, but given a ciphertext, cannot or cannot easily reproduce the original password. So when you log in to site using a a one-way encrypted password, the site knows how to generate that encrypted text from your password, and simply compares the encrypted text.
So here’s the downside: what if you forget your password? It’s really hard to get back to the plaintext password just given the ciphertext password, so really the only option is to reset the password to some random new password, somehow communicate what that password to you, and let you log in and change it to something you know.
But the upside: storing a one-way encrypted password is easier. For the most part, one-way encryption produces a ciphertext that is the same length each time, making the design of the database easier and more predictable. Also, most one-way functions produce a ciphertext that is simply a number.
Here’s what that means: type in a password of any length, with any symbols you want, and the encryption function and your database can handle it. You don’t need to worry about capping your users’ password length or limiting the symbols they use. Facebook, Twitter, and other sites that don’t limit your password (within reason) use one-way encryption. Based on the errors shown here, it’s clear that Chase uses two-way.
Chase isn’t the only site to do it. In fact, most enterprise sites limit your password length (although, not letting you use symbols is a low blow). But why? By letting in a wider variety of passwords, your Facebook password is potentially safer than your bank password. Is this really what we want?
I understand that banks need to use stronger encryption (and the strongest algorithms are two-way, but take a long time to implement and execute, so are only used when necessary), but why not one-way encrypt the ciphertext of the two-way encrypted password? To me, this seems like the best of both worlds: the speed and flexibility of the one-way encryption; the increased security of two-way encryption.
The only thing this loses, I think, is the ability to simply tell the user their old password if they forget it. Is that what banks are afraid of?
As a postscript, I managed to find a password that is secure for my credit card account. But statistically, my coins in FarmVille (if I played that game) and the status of my pokes on Facebook are safer than my credit card details and transactions. Something is definitely wrong here.