Or maybe they just don't think it's worth the time and effort to block the people who can exploit the hole. After all, if someone's willing to exploit this hole, they're probably willing to pirate it some other way, so why not get the lesser amount and not spend precious development and qa time on a fix that could easily introduce more bugs?
Now you're picking nits. Using the offline feature in Google Docs is going to require a plug-in also That's not nitpicking at all. We're looking at, what, 10-20% of the browser market going to something other than IE, but IE's the only one that supports ActiveX objects. There's a world of difference between requiring a plugin for additional functionality and requiring one for any functionality.
Of course we'll have them start with FPGAs first before actual silicon, because that only makes sense. Good idea. And while you're at it why not give them a mint, tuck them in at night and make sure that they have all their stuffed animals. Do you want employees or pussies?
How clever. An AC has thoughtlessly blasted the US's foreign policy and gotten modded up. In the past 10 years the US has initiated 2 military actions against foreign powers. Compare this to Germany in WWI or WWII or to Japan in WWII. Compare this to Russia after WWII. Compare this to almost any other large, powerful nation at the height of its power. In comparison, the US is quite benevolent.
There's the counter argument that the US should be better than that, though, and I agree. The US shouldn't just be the greatest nation in terms of military power, it should strive to be the most moral nation in the world. However, criticizing someone for trying to hit the mark and missing is more counter-productive than congratulating them for getting so close.
How will you keep the results from being biased by the responders? For instance, if you were to have more links to this from fox news than from other news outlets, you would get a large number of conservatives rating stories. In that instance, you would get a lot of people saying that right-leaning stories are more unbiased and more unbiased stories would be rated liberal. The opposite would be true too; if you get a lot of traffic from moveon.org, there's going to be a large number of people rating things as conservatively biased.
This effect could even arise from random fluctuations with a small enough response group, and unless this is controlled, your site could eventually be labelled as "conservative" or "liberal" which would discourage the opposite group from voting, possibly providing a feedback mechanism for bias.
How would you prevent this from happening while still allowing users to generate the results?
Re:downplaying the white elephant
on
NXP RFID Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Which was my whole fucking point, douchebag And my point is that you're still limited in distance by quite a bit. I wasn't meaning to contradict you, just state the upper limit of your argument with the limitations that implies. But don't let that keep you from getting confrontational.
But hey, it got you modded up, right? If I was looking for a mod, I would have posted the same response higher in the conversation so that more mods would have seen it sooner. Instead of assuming that I was looking for a mod, why not assume instead that I was looking for a discussion on the practicality of the different hacks? I was also hoping someone would be able to chime in with stronger numbers on the size of the components that would be needed for the different distances. But don't let that keep you from being an asshole.
Until the kernel switches from GPLv2 it won't really be considered a success in many people's eyes Or until another kernel (Hurd) can replace it. That would likely take a couple of years, too, considering how long it took for the Linux kernel to get the point where it was this reliable.
Why is this written like it is a war between GPLv3 and other licenses? Because the GPL licenses have a tendency to not play nice with other licenses, effectively making it a war. Do the apache license and gplv3 play nice? Probably. Does GPLv2 and GPLv3 play nice? Probably not.
The other side of this is a fight between the two open source camps, the idealists and the pragmatists. Stallman is firmly in the idealist camp and he's the one that primarily wrote v3. Linus is firmly in the pragmatist camp. Linus made his problems with the v3 drafts known, and Stallman didn't address them, instead choosing to go the idealist route. It's a stupid, petty debate with stupid, petty people on both sides.
Re:downplaying the white elephant
on
NXP RFID Cracked
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Antenna size (for receiving the card response) and power levels (for energizing the card) are all that matter here, really. Let's not forget physics. The amount of power that it takes to energize a card goes up by a power of 3 as you double the range. The same can be said for the signal put out by the RFID card. Building a better antenna for reading the card will decrease the required signal strength linearly. I don't see any reason you couldn't use a directional dish to send and receive the signals for the RFID card, but it's a little harder to hide a satellite dish, and it'll only send in one direction, meaning you can't really do a passive long-distance reader with that method.
So, increasing the distance isn't as trivial as you seem to imply. getting it to a few feet is probably doable without attracting a lot of attention, but getting it to more than ten feet doesn't sound plausible at all.
In this case, better is well defined. They're looking for a system that can take a certain data set and use it to predict another data set. ultimately, the quality of picks is determined by the user. For this contest, they've got data sets that they can use to determine which is the best method.
At the risk of sounding over-enthusiastic: yes! yes! a thousand time yes! If they guaranteed the bandwidth, I would guarantee the money. Right now I get sustained throughput at about 100k and I'm paying somewhere around $40 / month for it. Often I can't get above 40 k. So, where in your post do you have something that's supposed to shock me into realizing I'm getting a deal?
this sure sounds a lot like "embrace, embrace, extinquish." Where's the "extinguish" for google? Microsoft destroyed opponents by gaining their market share and then killing compatibility, making it so that things that worked on other platforms worked for Windows, but the opposite wasn't true.
Google's in significantly different markets and using different strategies. They're not pursuing marketing techniques to get market share, they get market share through having a superior product. When you use Google, you're not locked into using them all the time because of other considerations; there are no barriers to using yahoo instead.
Their google docs don't use a proprietary format, they use everyone else's formats, including word, pdf and openoffice. This means that the barrier for moving from google docs to another system is only the hassle of transferring the files, not in the formats being incompatible. They're not practicing lock-in of any kind, which is the fundamental difference between Google and Microsoft at this point: Google's playing nice, Microsoft is playing however they can.
So the comparison is dumb and inflammatory. Google's business model has been wholly different from the Microsoft model and (business-wise in the US) free of dirty tricks and underhanded maneuvers. Punish and condemn google for the bad things they've done, not for being the most successful software company to come around recently.
I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources...I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser You obviously haven't read the standards. Honestly, they're so complex they scream "bloat" at the top of their lungs.
I was referring to Einstein finally proving it in 1911. It was one of the papers that came between special and general relativity. He didn't invent the theory, but he did prove it, so I figured that giving him credit in a short joke wasn't too bad.
Does "first to be compromised" mean the only one to be compromised? At this time, it was the only one hacked. The contest continue tomorrow.
Is the contest completely over once one machine is cracked? It continues tomorrow with more 3rd party apps installed that can be used to break into the system. I don't see much chance of the other two making it through tomorrow, but that depends on the programs they install.
If not, were Windows and Ubuntu cracked minutes or hours after OS X? They're both still un-cracked.
Does using Firefox on OS X make it uncrackable? If you plug one hole in a sieve, will it hold water?
Was each OS required to use it's own browser: IE, Safari, and Epiphany? They had to use the software that comes pre-installed on the machine.
Since Firefox works on all 3 systems, wouldn't that be a better gauge of OS security? Only if Firefox came preinstalled on all 3 systems.
Where did I come from? Your mother's vagina. Hopefully you've never been back.
Why is the sky blue? Do I look like Einstein?
people simplify the problem to "Mac suxorz" when it really isn't that simple. Really? Because I see the Mac having come out as the clear loser in a head to head contest on a level playing field against the two biggest competitors it has in the laptop market. Seems pretty simple to me.
Good to see that social engineering is still all it requires to compromise something. It's always been the best way to compromise something, be it the walls of troy or taking the Native Americans' lands.
I, for one, am grateful that you turned your modem on, connected it to your computer, got over your creepy and offended feelings, then posted (in an uninvolved sort of way) about your habits.
Offtopic may not be fair for this particular Goatse link. Consider the GP: SCO hiring more lawyers is like rats going to a sinking ship. The AC was just trying to point out SCO's position, that hiring more lawyers may just be facilitating the outcome we all know is coming (ie "opening wide").
You nerds love it. I do indeed love SCO facilitating its own eventual outcome, yes.
If their law requires you to do evil things if you're doing business in their country, then why are you doing business in their country in the first place? Who does it hurt for Google to not do business in China or Saudi Arabia? It hurts Google. It hurts the citizens, because they have fewer/no alternatives. It doesn't hurt China or Saudi Arabia, they'd probably prefer to have a homegrown solution which can more easily be bent to their will; Google would follow the letter of the law after they're compelled, a local company would follow the spirit of the law.
Even if the local company is defiant, they'll start doing whatever the government wants after a series of replacements come in for upper management that say all the right things to the governing party.
Google receives some protection because of its status as an American company; the Chinese can't just seize Google's offices and tell them they're now owned by the government. Google's international and high profile, any foul play with their employees or their equipment can be made public with an almost negligible amount of effort and raise an international shitstorm.
But you're right that Google could refuse to do business in these countries, leaving their citizens with no alternative that has any chance of standing against the government at all. Question: how would you tell if Google's trying to help the Chinese people by giving them a viable alternative or if they're just trying to make more money with no regard for the Chinese people at all?
Okay, this is just a bit silly, don't you think? Google's censoring is only those sites which it's legally required to censor; Slashdot's done the same and they'll continue to do so. It's not the place of an international corporation to pick and choose which laws to follow.
evil (in the USA) would be fighting the govn't. No, fighting the government is neither evil nor good without motivation; what motivation do they have to fight the government? They've fought it before, and I haven't heard of them caving since.
China, France and Germany, on the other hand, have required Google to actively censor their sites. Google's expressed some regret over paying the price for China, but it's not clear cut either way. If you fight the Chinese government on Chinese soil, you lose unless you're very good at hiding yourself. Do you honestly think that Google's going to be able to avoid the Chinese agents that come to shut them down and arrest their employees? Do you think China would be better off if Google had never gone there in the first place?
It shows that they're complying with the government ideas of good and evil, not the rights of the individual What have you done to extend more freedom and rights to the Chinese people recently?
exploitation of the masses to benefit the wealthy, elite upper class Actually, that was the case in Europe and China for hundreds of years before America was founded. But don't let history and facts keep you from blaming all the world's ills on the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe they just don't think it's worth the time and effort to block the people who can exploit the hole. After all, if someone's willing to exploit this hole, they're probably willing to pirate it some other way, so why not get the lesser amount and not spend precious development and qa time on a fix that could easily introduce more bugs?
How clever. An AC has thoughtlessly blasted the US's foreign policy and gotten modded up. In the past 10 years the US has initiated 2 military actions against foreign powers. Compare this to Germany in WWI or WWII or to Japan in WWII. Compare this to Russia after WWII. Compare this to almost any other large, powerful nation at the height of its power. In comparison, the US is quite benevolent.
There's the counter argument that the US should be better than that, though, and I agree. The US shouldn't just be the greatest nation in terms of military power, it should strive to be the most moral nation in the world. However, criticizing someone for trying to hit the mark and missing is more counter-productive than congratulating them for getting so close.
How will you keep the results from being biased by the responders? For instance, if you were to have more links to this from fox news than from other news outlets, you would get a large number of conservatives rating stories. In that instance, you would get a lot of people saying that right-leaning stories are more unbiased and more unbiased stories would be rated liberal. The opposite would be true too; if you get a lot of traffic from moveon.org, there's going to be a large number of people rating things as conservatively biased.
This effect could even arise from random fluctuations with a small enough response group, and unless this is controlled, your site could eventually be labelled as "conservative" or "liberal" which would discourage the opposite group from voting, possibly providing a feedback mechanism for bias.
How would you prevent this from happening while still allowing users to generate the results?
The other side of this is a fight between the two open source camps, the idealists and the pragmatists. Stallman is firmly in the idealist camp and he's the one that primarily wrote v3. Linus is firmly in the pragmatist camp. Linus made his problems with the v3 drafts known, and Stallman didn't address them, instead choosing to go the idealist route. It's a stupid, petty debate with stupid, petty people on both sides.
So, increasing the distance isn't as trivial as you seem to imply. getting it to a few feet is probably doable without attracting a lot of attention, but getting it to more than ten feet doesn't sound plausible at all.
In this case, better is well defined. They're looking for a system that can take a certain data set and use it to predict another data set. ultimately, the quality of picks is determined by the user. For this contest, they've got data sets that they can use to determine which is the best method.
At the risk of sounding over-enthusiastic: yes! yes! a thousand time yes! If they guaranteed the bandwidth, I would guarantee the money. Right now I get sustained throughput at about 100k and I'm paying somewhere around $40 / month for it. Often I can't get above 40 k. So, where in your post do you have something that's supposed to shock me into realizing I'm getting a deal?
Google's in significantly different markets and using different strategies. They're not pursuing marketing techniques to get market share, they get market share through having a superior product. When you use Google, you're not locked into using them all the time because of other considerations; there are no barriers to using yahoo instead.
Their google docs don't use a proprietary format, they use everyone else's formats, including word, pdf and openoffice. This means that the barrier for moving from google docs to another system is only the hassle of transferring the files, not in the formats being incompatible. They're not practicing lock-in of any kind, which is the fundamental difference between Google and Microsoft at this point: Google's playing nice, Microsoft is playing however they can.
So the comparison is dumb and inflammatory. Google's business model has been wholly different from the Microsoft model and (business-wise in the US) free of dirty tricks and underhanded maneuvers. Punish and condemn google for the bad things they've done, not for being the most successful software company to come around recently.
I was referring to Einstein finally proving it in 1911. It was one of the papers that came between special and general relativity. He didn't invent the theory, but he did prove it, so I figured that giving him credit in a short joke wasn't too bad.
Yea, but airport security might not like it.
You're right. With a stricter firewall, the browser wouldn't have been able to fetch anything over the internet at all.
I, for one, am grateful that you turned your modem on, connected it to your computer, got over your creepy and offended feelings, then posted (in an uninvolved sort of way) about your habits.
Unfortunately there are a few orders of magnitude in the difference of power between the Chinese government and the RIAA.
Which raises the question: can God create a vacation so expensive that He Himself cannot afford it?
Even if the local company is defiant, they'll start doing whatever the government wants after a series of replacements come in for upper management that say all the right things to the governing party.
Google receives some protection because of its status as an American company; the Chinese can't just seize Google's offices and tell them they're now owned by the government. Google's international and high profile, any foul play with their employees or their equipment can be made public with an almost negligible amount of effort and raise an international shitstorm.
But you're right that Google could refuse to do business in these countries, leaving their citizens with no alternative that has any chance of standing against the government at all. Question: how would you tell if Google's trying to help the Chinese people by giving them a viable alternative or if they're just trying to make more money with no regard for the Chinese people at all?
China, France and Germany, on the other hand, have required Google to actively censor their sites. Google's expressed some regret over paying the price for China, but it's not clear cut either way. If you fight the Chinese government on Chinese soil, you lose unless you're very good at hiding yourself. Do you honestly think that Google's going to be able to avoid the Chinese agents that come to shut them down and arrest their employees? Do you think China would be better off if Google had never gone there in the first place? It shows that they're complying with the government ideas of good and evil, not the rights of the individual What have you done to extend more freedom and rights to the Chinese people recently?