How is this "exploit" any different from using a MSI web installer, beyond it being cross-platform? *click* "Is it ok to run this untrusted program?" "YES"
It occurred to me that any US government bill purchasing services from Amazon should be unconstitutional, be it these censorship actions are the result of government funding (law). The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Their actions as of late have been pretty blatant. If the government started purchasing large quantities of "cookies" from the New York Times, and the New York Times mysteriously decided they needed to fire all of their investigative reporters because they weren't making as much money as the "cookies"...
I mean, what if I feel that in the middle of sex, I no longer want to be having sex, for about 10 seconds, then later decide - that I actually want sex again. Is that 10 seconds of rape? What if I decide to wait a couple of weeks after continuing a relationship, even after being raped for 10 seconds? Never mind the psychological studies on "hot" and "cold" states. People are going to do irrational things in a "hot" state. Generally speaking, if you've been having a night of wild sex, you're going to be in a "hot" state, and aren't going to take a gently stated "stop" at face value. How about in a relationship? Is it rape to try and seduce your lover? One person is tired, and the other tries to get them in the mood? Is Seth Rogan being horribly raped in the sex scene of "Knocked Up" as he states his discomforts of sleeping with his pregnant partner? He might have been doing the moving, but he clearly was not consenting. If there is no actual violence, then it seems more fittingly as a form of molestation. In a sexual relationship, I'd go as far as to say - there's no such thing as molestation within an established consensual sexual relationship. I think it's reasonable to say there should be implied consent. You want to avoid non-violent sexual advances? You need to end the sexual relationship. The courts really can't determine any factual basis beyond a reasonable doubt on these matters of "rape" anyhow if the party's stories split. I'm not saying this kind of behavior is not abusive behavior, but we haven't outlawed being mean yet - as our courts would be completely overrun with wasteful chicanery. If being mean isn't against the law, why should we waste our time with this?
If you go by what Daniel Ellsberg said (I think this was a democracy now interview), Wikileaks actually sent the information they were going to leak to the Pentagon, so as to have the "targets of terrorism" redacted. The Pentagon refused to cooperate in this manner. Exactly what party is responsible for keeping this information safe?
Sounds like Wikileaks used Manning to validate leaked documents if this is the case. Exactly what's wrong with assistance in submitting something? If a secretary told Daniel Elsberg not to just put the papers in slot A, but slot B, what difference does that make again? I imagine it's not unusual to get in contact with someone in the media before just dumping info on them.
This is hardly a bug. If you load anything from a remote server, as long as they put a randomly generated id tying it to the sent email, it can be used to track. A server gets the request, marks the email as read, then returns a standard image... On the other hand, there's no reason an email server couldn't get tricky and pre-load every image it gets, then pipe it as an attachment to the user on a request.
Perhaps they should just rename their video game specialty store, "Video game store with a worse selection than Wal-Mart". These retailers are just making things worse for themselves. Do they really think they have some kind of monopoly on brick and mortar distribution? I mean how is the conversation going to go with the consumer?
Consumer - "I'd like to reserve a copy of Half-Life 3." Store - "Sorry, we don't stock it." Consumer - "What do you mean you don't stock it? You're a game store - it's the one of the biggest titles out there? Could you get a copy for me?" Store - "I'm sorry, we can't stock it." Consumer - "How am I supposed to get a copy of this game?" Store's minimum wage employee - (pick one) A. "You don't, we have other games." B. "I don't know." C. "I can't tell you." D. "Well, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but we're not stocking it because you can get the game on Steam, and they threaten our business. You'll have to go there or to a competing retailer, like WalMart."
I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just make something like Mozilla Prism that runs IE6 or whatever flavor of IE that you need to run their browser-dependent applications. If users need these internal apps they keep running them in a sort of sandbox, while not making life hell for everyone by surfing the web on IE6. I'm sure most MS Administrators would breath easier knowing their users can still run the corporate applications while not running a vulnerable browser all over the web...
Even if you could reverse engineer their brains, you would still have to overcome the hurdle of dealing with a NP-Hard problem - which means discovering that the problem is in fact not NP-Hard, that P=NP, that bees are able to match results from hard sets that took exponential time to run, or somehow mathematically reducing the reverse engineered bee's brains to show that it is an actual polynomial time algorithm (or some magic black box machine). I suspect you would just end up with an interesting heuristic by codifying their brains. I suppose my point was more that it's an unreasonable observation to think the bees are solving the problem unless you are giving the bees difficult sets. It might be enlightening to work at creating environments where the bees fail to get an optimal solution to understand what they are doing.
You don't solve a NP-Hard or NP-Complete mathematical problem by using a heuristic. Good heuristics for the TSP have existed for quite some time, and I'm sure they're faster than bees.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem#Heuristic_and_approximation_algorithms
I feel it's really deceptive that they claim this problem takes a supercomputer to solve the problem in days, when they certainly haven't proven the bees always get the best solution (I think at best, we could disprove this - not prove it). Anyhow, it is interesting that so little neural circuitry is needed to solve this kind of problem.
I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to trick the ISP into thinking a system is part of a bot network. I imagine an XSS attack or a bad link could easily make for a bunch of calls to places that would match the pattern... I'm sure customers will love having their internet blocked when any recommended anti-virus software can't find anything. ISP to customer, "You're infected by a botnet." Customer, "I've followed all your advice and tried three different anti-virus programs which came up with nothing." Rinse and repeat, and see who keeps paying for internet service.
I can see this really taking off in the office I work at... Oh wait... Is that a giant truck of bandwidth clogging the private network? You're using the VPN to host torrent files? Ring Ring, the customer wants to know why is the internet so slow.
I thought that was the entire axiomatic contradiction Godel pointed out. In any system of logic you use, there must necessarily be true statements that you cannot prove. You could say that it's decidable because it's true, but then you can't prove it - which would mean your system is inconsistent.
Wayback machine can lead to some other interesting links:
http://savetheplanetprotest.yuku.com/topic/353/t/Save-The-Planet-Protest.html
This nut has been at it for over two years. Perhaps someone should have told him they were in total agreement, and there was a resistance front hiding in some giant forest.
It's from a show called Cheers, a highly scientific comedy involving drinking...
Cliff Clavin, of Cheers. One afternoon at Cheers, Cliff Clavin was explaining the Buffalo Theory to his buddy Norm. Here's how it went: "Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
I don't think Google has to do anything. I saw a rather interesting article on the nytimes about 20-somethings not "growing up".
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Perhaps there is no co-relation, but if the young and capable minds are being held back by traditional moral image expectations of established businesses - the natural economics of business will slowly grow replacements. The process could potentially be expedited by inefficient businesses getting an enema. Schmidt says the individuals must change to fit the businesses by changing their names. I suspect that's less efficient than businesses adapting to the individuals. Perhaps there is an middle road.
We're moving to a point where things you don't want people to know are showing up online without any action taken on your part. Someone snaps a photo of you, someone else tags it, some 3rd party web application aggregates it. The only action on your part was doing something stick up their ass society doesn't approve of. I think Schmidt is wrong. I think it's business that needs to change... or fail as our 20 year old somethings adapt and make their own businesses to replace them. I think the politics will be particularly entertaining 40 years from now.
De-facto net neutrality has worked well enough for everyone up until now. Let's legislate and make sure it stays that way.
Reminds me of the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Remind me again why we need something to fix a potential problem, when we could just wait until it actually becomes a problem? I realize Comcast is crap, but the FCC isn't going to fix that.
I'm hard-pressed to believe Wikileaks is getting their hands on any information terrorists don't already have means to access. While I wouldn't say Wikileaks is *helping* things, I think there is much to say for the fact that the information *was* leaked regardless of Wikileaks... Is Wikileaks more a danger to the listed informants than the current methods of recording said information in the first place? Is wikileaks releasing this information any worse than other people drawing attention to the information? Is the releasing the information through some idealistic notion any more idiotic than attempting to censor now public information resulting in a Streisand effect? Is our political elite so technologically incompetent that they're not aware of this, or is this in fact a more deliberate attempt to have these people you're so worried about killed?
Do you think the GM crops are magical in some way ordinary plants are not? It's just another plant, not an alien invasion. Think of it as turbo mule creation with easier to control reproduction.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this "exploit" any different from using a MSI web installer, beyond it being cross-platform? *click* "Is it ok to run this untrusted program?" "YES"
It occurred to me that any US government bill purchasing services from Amazon should be unconstitutional, be it these censorship actions are the result of government funding (law). The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Their actions as of late have been pretty blatant. If the government started purchasing large quantities of "cookies" from the New York Times, and the New York Times mysteriously decided they needed to fire all of their investigative reporters because they weren't making as much money as the "cookies"...
I mean, what if I feel that in the middle of sex, I no longer want to be having sex, for about 10 seconds, then later decide - that I actually want sex again. Is that 10 seconds of rape? What if I decide to wait a couple of weeks after continuing a relationship, even after being raped for 10 seconds? Never mind the psychological studies on "hot" and "cold" states. People are going to do irrational things in a "hot" state. Generally speaking, if you've been having a night of wild sex, you're going to be in a "hot" state, and aren't going to take a gently stated "stop" at face value. How about in a relationship? Is it rape to try and seduce your lover? One person is tired, and the other tries to get them in the mood? Is Seth Rogan being horribly raped in the sex scene of "Knocked Up" as he states his discomforts of sleeping with his pregnant partner? He might have been doing the moving, but he clearly was not consenting. If there is no actual violence, then it seems more fittingly as a form of molestation. In a sexual relationship, I'd go as far as to say - there's no such thing as molestation within an established consensual sexual relationship. I think it's reasonable to say there should be implied consent. You want to avoid non-violent sexual advances? You need to end the sexual relationship. The courts really can't determine any factual basis beyond a reasonable doubt on these matters of "rape" anyhow if the party's stories split. I'm not saying this kind of behavior is not abusive behavior, but we haven't outlawed being mean yet - as our courts would be completely overrun with wasteful chicanery. If being mean isn't against the law, why should we waste our time with this?
If you go by what Daniel Ellsberg said (I think this was a democracy now interview), Wikileaks actually sent the information they were going to leak to the Pentagon, so as to have the "targets of terrorism" redacted. The Pentagon refused to cooperate in this manner. Exactly what party is responsible for keeping this information safe?
Sounds like Wikileaks used Manning to validate leaked documents if this is the case. Exactly what's wrong with assistance in submitting something? If a secretary told Daniel Elsberg not to just put the papers in slot A, but slot B, what difference does that make again? I imagine it's not unusual to get in contact with someone in the media before just dumping info on them.
Then make anyone who circumvents the blocks a criminal. Normal upstanding citizens aren't going to believe a criminal over their own government.
If you see a sysadmin, please contact the French authorities.
I personally find the whiny "please give us money" more annoying than just putting up unobtrusive advertising.
I doubt VMWare (which owns SpringSource) is very happy on the matter.
This is hardly a bug. If you load anything from a remote server, as long as they put a randomly generated id tying it to the sent email, it can be used to track. A server gets the request, marks the email as read, then returns a standard image... On the other hand, there's no reason an email server couldn't get tricky and pre-load every image it gets, then pipe it as an attachment to the user on a request.
Perhaps they should just rename their video game specialty store, "Video game store with a worse selection than Wal-Mart". These retailers are just making things worse for themselves. Do they really think they have some kind of monopoly on brick and mortar distribution? I mean how is the conversation going to go with the consumer? Consumer - "I'd like to reserve a copy of Half-Life 3." Store - "Sorry, we don't stock it." Consumer - "What do you mean you don't stock it? You're a game store - it's the one of the biggest titles out there? Could you get a copy for me?" Store - "I'm sorry, we can't stock it." Consumer - "How am I supposed to get a copy of this game?" Store's minimum wage employee - (pick one) A. "You don't, we have other games." B. "I don't know." C. "I can't tell you." D. "Well, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but we're not stocking it because you can get the game on Steam, and they threaten our business. You'll have to go there or to a competing retailer, like WalMart."
I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just make something like Mozilla Prism that runs IE6 or whatever flavor of IE that you need to run their browser-dependent applications. If users need these internal apps they keep running them in a sort of sandbox, while not making life hell for everyone by surfing the web on IE6. I'm sure most MS Administrators would breath easier knowing their users can still run the corporate applications while not running a vulnerable browser all over the web...
Even if you could reverse engineer their brains, you would still have to overcome the hurdle of dealing with a NP-Hard problem - which means discovering that the problem is in fact not NP-Hard, that P=NP, that bees are able to match results from hard sets that took exponential time to run, or somehow mathematically reducing the reverse engineered bee's brains to show that it is an actual polynomial time algorithm (or some magic black box machine). I suspect you would just end up with an interesting heuristic by codifying their brains. I suppose my point was more that it's an unreasonable observation to think the bees are solving the problem unless you are giving the bees difficult sets. It might be enlightening to work at creating environments where the bees fail to get an optimal solution to understand what they are doing.
You don't solve a NP-Hard or NP-Complete mathematical problem by using a heuristic. Good heuristics for the TSP have existed for quite some time, and I'm sure they're faster than bees. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem#Heuristic_and_approximation_algorithms I feel it's really deceptive that they claim this problem takes a supercomputer to solve the problem in days, when they certainly haven't proven the bees always get the best solution (I think at best, we could disprove this - not prove it). Anyhow, it is interesting that so little neural circuitry is needed to solve this kind of problem.
I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to trick the ISP into thinking a system is part of a bot network. I imagine an XSS attack or a bad link could easily make for a bunch of calls to places that would match the pattern... I'm sure customers will love having their internet blocked when any recommended anti-virus software can't find anything. ISP to customer, "You're infected by a botnet." Customer, "I've followed all your advice and tried three different anti-virus programs which came up with nothing." Rinse and repeat, and see who keeps paying for internet service.
I can see this really taking off in the office I work at... Oh wait... Is that a giant truck of bandwidth clogging the private network? You're using the VPN to host torrent files? Ring Ring, the customer wants to know why is the internet so slow.
I thought that was the entire axiomatic contradiction Godel pointed out. In any system of logic you use, there must necessarily be true statements that you cannot prove. You could say that it's decidable because it's true, but then you can't prove it - which would mean your system is inconsistent.
Wayback machine can lead to some other interesting links: http://savetheplanetprotest.yuku.com/topic/353/t/Save-The-Planet-Protest.html This nut has been at it for over two years. Perhaps someone should have told him they were in total agreement, and there was a resistance front hiding in some giant forest.
It's from a show called Cheers, a highly scientific comedy involving drinking... Cliff Clavin, of Cheers. One afternoon at Cheers, Cliff Clavin was explaining the Buffalo Theory to his buddy Norm. Here's how it went: "Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
To be fair Android isn't using Java licensed under the GPL.
I don't think Google has to do anything. I saw a rather interesting article on the nytimes about 20-somethings not "growing up". https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html?src=me&ref=homepage Perhaps there is no co-relation, but if the young and capable minds are being held back by traditional moral image expectations of established businesses - the natural economics of business will slowly grow replacements. The process could potentially be expedited by inefficient businesses getting an enema. Schmidt says the individuals must change to fit the businesses by changing their names. I suspect that's less efficient than businesses adapting to the individuals. Perhaps there is an middle road.
We're moving to a point where things you don't want people to know are showing up online without any action taken on your part. Someone snaps a photo of you, someone else tags it, some 3rd party web application aggregates it. The only action on your part was doing something stick up their ass society doesn't approve of. I think Schmidt is wrong. I think it's business that needs to change... or fail as our 20 year old somethings adapt and make their own businesses to replace them. I think the politics will be particularly entertaining 40 years from now.
De-facto net neutrality has worked well enough for everyone up until now. Let's legislate and make sure it stays that way.
Reminds me of the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Remind me again why we need something to fix a potential problem, when we could just wait until it actually becomes a problem? I realize Comcast is crap, but the FCC isn't going to fix that.
I'm hard-pressed to believe Wikileaks is getting their hands on any information terrorists don't already have means to access. While I wouldn't say Wikileaks is *helping* things, I think there is much to say for the fact that the information *was* leaked regardless of Wikileaks... Is Wikileaks more a danger to the listed informants than the current methods of recording said information in the first place? Is wikileaks releasing this information any worse than other people drawing attention to the information? Is the releasing the information through some idealistic notion any more idiotic than attempting to censor now public information resulting in a Streisand effect? Is our political elite so technologically incompetent that they're not aware of this, or is this in fact a more deliberate attempt to have these people you're so worried about killed?
FIRST alt+U0161
Do you think the GM crops are magical in some way ordinary plants are not? It's just another plant, not an alien invasion. Think of it as turbo mule creation with easier to control reproduction.