Wow. It was just a question and a fairly harmless one at that. By the way, my sig was meant for folks like you.:D
And to think, YOU are the example of INSIGHTFUL. Way to set the bar pretty low. LOL.
Anyway. You have a reason to want privacy. Everyone does. Whether the reason is broad and abstract, such as a desire to relax in a safe space, or whether it's specific, such as fear of retribution, you still have a reason. If you don't have a reason, you're just a lowly animal getting by on stimulus/response.
Yea. I should have said battery. Either can be interpreted as aggressive acts and thus violent. All the officer has to say is the old standby "you lunged at him" and that's enough to charge you with something.
How do you throw freedom away?
Make a law for everything so everyone's guilty at every moment in time
Exaggerate minor offenses such as littering to jailable offenses
Bless the government with wide leeway for interpretation (terrorist, national security, potential threat, etc)
Move security enforcement outside of the court
Make the law as complex as possible
Make bonds impossible to pay ($100k - $1 mil)
Make defending one's self in court as difficult as possible with long drawn out waits, hearings, sentencings, and many fees
Enact as many laws as possible to serve as exceptions to the constitution
Adopt a culture of mandatory jail time for every crime, no matter how insignificant the crime or unusual the circumstances
Make it impossible for an ex-convict to shake off past convictions
Bless airline stewardesses with the power to arrest anyone sneezing or coughing too loudly
Whistle blowing: but, that could be done by pay phone or snail mail
Police informant: but, that would be abused by false reports, plus police usually have less faith in anonymous reports, although anonymous child abuse reports are taken seriously
Political message: ok, I understand that if you're living in a restricted country.
Embarrassing stuff: sex diseases, sexual assault support, teen pregnancy, GLBT
Illegal stuff: lots of potential for that
OK. So, do any of you have any reasons not on my list?
You can be arrested for assault if you gently place the tip of your index finger on a police officer. And, any type of assault is violence as far as the government is concerned.
You can also be charged with assault if an officer trips over his clumsy feet, falls down, and hits his head while pursuing you, trying to apprehend you, or forcing you to leave the scene. You could very well be in the right, but if the officer gets hurt while dealing with you, you will be charged with assault.
It seems apparent to me Microsoft is filing ad patents because they intend to release a free or almost free version of a Vista-lite that's loaded with ad serving software to cover the expense loss. Inserting ad malware into their flagship product would be suicide. They're not that stupid.
Microsoft probably intends to compete with free Linux with a free Windows OS.
In fairness, I have not used the trial version of Office-2007. But, after my experience with the trial version of Office-2003, I would touch it with a ten foot pole. Please make sure your friends don't touch it either.
Why don't you come back when you actually try the thing you're freaking out about? Hmm? Might be a good thing to actually
Some of the latest epidemiological studies show that we are getting the same amount of sleep.
I know I'm not. If we were farmers living in 1900, we'd be going to bed by 9pm and getting up around 5 to 6am. I often get to bed by 1am, wake around 6am and spend 2 hours trying and failing to get more sleep before 8am, which is when I get up. I have many co-workers who also complain of never getting more than 5-7 hours a night. Even being 1 hour behind every night accumulates and drains you throughout the week.
Not enough sleep. The lack of sleep causes memory problems and insomnia is a growing sleep problem. I believe the average number of hours of sleep per night has been decreasing the last 50 years. Can't prove it. Although, look at the popularity of the latest sleep drugs.
So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.
Heavens, they might even vote for public medicine, anti-war candidates, or rights for women, minorities, gays, and transgendered, because that's how those youngins usually vote. Going by history that is.
Pure Hacking's Gatford said the problem is compounded by the slim chance of an enterprise patching Java Runtime vulnerabilities.
"It would be an extremely difficult and laborious process for an organization trying to patch Java Runtime across the enterprise," he said.
I agree, but, since when has patching been easier on something else?
I think it's easier among corporations, where there's likely to be an IT group and an inventory of hardware. If they're deploying java, then they're more likely to be setup to maintain updates. They already have a maintenance infrastructure.
It's the cell and home user I would be concerned about. They don't know what they have or why it's important to update.
so in short you say Yahoo didn't do anything to kick them out ? (or nobody cared to signal them)
I believe it's hopeless in its current state. Yahoo chat is unmoderated so there's no enforcement except when users hit the Spam button on other users.
I've also seen a lot of spam bots fitting a similar pattern but I assumed they were created by manually entering CAPTCHAs. A spammer has an incentive to spend a few days entering them, but a chatter does not. (If they do they're sick in the head).
I've seen both of those for at least 4-6 months. I wouldn't surprised if email spammers yanked the code from the chat booting clients. It probably also explains why Yahoo chat has had severe performance problems the last several months. I used to login to it when I was bored.
You completely missed his point. I suggest you read the rest of his comment.
I understood his point. He had two points. Germans can't give up irrevocable ownership rights and the copyright law is flawed. I consider that particular law moot because forbidding is not enforcement, and thus is not a violation of irrevocable law, which is why I didn't specifically refer to it.
Courts and governments enforce. Not companies. Just stop injecting other's trademarks and copyrighted stuff into your art and there won't be a problem. Simple as that. I have no sympathy for one's belly aching if one does.
Anyway. My original point was there could be a happy medium where the two could merge. GW lets you insert trademarks in your work if you limit publishing of your work on GW's youtube clone site, otherwise they sue you within the guidelines of the law. As I said before, they would yield profits and credit because it's their trademark on your creation. You could still maintain ownership and author credit to satisfy the German law. By submitting your work, you would be licensing GW to publish your work on the site. If you wanted to take it elsewhere, you'd have to strip the trademarks and anything resembling copyrighted material.
The point is it could be done. If you say it it can't, then how else could trademarked products be co-branded in Germany? Think about that for a minute.
lena_10326 = eager to jump to conclusions
You're right. I made a conclusion in error: that you could understand my point without the training wheels.
If something is irrelevant, nobody will link to it, and if nobody links to it, it's not gonna show up in the top search results
What about stale content? It doesn't get updated so links will continue to point to other old content. The number of links will grow even if the content is several years old because it's always new to someone. People will continue to write new content linking to old stale content.
With new content, it hasn't been published very long so it hasn't gotten linked much so it may never accumulate thea number of links as compared to the stale content.
One other point. Not everyone knows that stale content is not relevant. It's easy to assume information that's 3 years old is still current if it's not your field, so you may be inclined to believe it's still relevant, which would fool the page ranking. Since there will be more amateurs than professionals reading or linking to each particular field, page ranking will be weighted toward the amateurs, which is the wrong choice to base relevancy on.
Almost all personal blog posts are a combination of pointless drivel and endless linkfests.
The zenith of this vapid idiocy is "live blogging", where someone unfamous and unconnected goes somewhere significant (that's usually open to the general public) and does a chatlog play-by-play of everything that happens (not just the significant events).
I think anyone who's read more than 5 blogs has seen what you're talking about. They're maintained by those who have nothing in particular to say so they resort to itineraries of what occurred that day or worse by linking to articles they've read, offering no useful commentary or criticism for any of them. A blog that tries to be interesting by pointing to interesting blogs or articles is rarely interesting.
However, hope isn't lost for the ordinary and unknown blogger who wants to write about daily life or personal stories. You don't have to write about new technology, science, or all your great philosophical insights to build a great blog. If you approach every post as if you're writing a fictional short story, then you will write interesting personal stuff.
It starts with presenting a problem, which is arrived at quickly in the first couple of sentences (Act I). What follows is a series of increasing problems and complications, but leading up to a major problem (Act II), which is then resolved succinctly (Act III).
Most biographical stories can be presented in this way and hint toward a moral or point. If they can't, then there is no reason to blog it. It's boring. Although, it doesn't have to be discarded. It can be saved and grouped with other related stories that together present a more abstract problem and resolution.
The other type of blog is a comedy blog, however even funny stories need to be constructed with the same problem and resolution pattern. But remember comedy is difficult to pull off, although it's worth it when it works.
You don't have to be a world traveler, scientist, musician, politician, or any other sort of unusual or famous celebrity type to write a good blog, but you do have to blog only when something truly interesting did happen, meaning it fits the 3 Act model.
The rule is to write, but only publish when you actually have something to say, otherwise it will read like a grocery list. And, grocery lists are rarely fun (unless you find one on the ground with embarrassing items on written on it, heh).
15.000 is an extremly small number. when one has thousands of of zombies under his control, making those mail accounts with a program would take a couple of hours at most. come back when you report millions of bogus email accounts
I wouldn't say that.
Mail sent from these email accounts are going to run through different filters than external email would. Both providers are going to have more permissive filters for email sent from within Yahoo, so these accounts will be more effective than zombie machines especially if Yahoo and Hotmail haven't grasped that their CAPTCHAs were broken a while ago.
The email spams sent from the web forms aren't guaranteed to be bound to the same sending IP per account because it's all inside Yahoo and Hotmail's network and each web request will probably queue from a different IP and to a different mail queur (another different IP), because everything is going to be load balanced up the wazzoo with the amount of traffic they handle. However, with the zombies, each will fire off X number of emails and each off those will originate from the same non-Yahoo IP, which is easier to filter.
Wouldn't it be feasible to record and catalog the fonts and manipulations done by a particular site's CAPTCHA engine, and then script some type of automatic "OCR" to suit? Are these CAPTCHA's dynamically generated from an extended "character set" or are the distortions generated in real-time?
That's how CAPTCHAs are broken, although you don't have to use a general OCR program. If you're going to attack a single type of CAPTCHA, you could tailor your code to take advantage of known properties of that specific CAPTCHA such as: backgrounds, background colors, repeated markings, fonts, font colors, font size, font orientation, and direction of any image warping.
Most CAPTCHAs use images and random marks or dots in the background but those can be filtered out in a pre-processing step if you know they're drawn using a limited set of colors or don't use the same line thickness as the font. Photographic backgrounds will be limited so they could be filtered easily by detecting which background the CAPTCHA used for that session. Using an oversized background and shifting it by an offset would present difficulty, but Yahoo and Hotmail don't use background images. If backgrounds are rendered gradients, I think it's relatively easy to detect the font color by scanning for broken runs of a continuous single color. The gradient colors would deviate slightly, within a small percent change. If there is any repetitive pattern, which there is if it's a gradient, it only helps the filter breaking the CAPTCHA.
A lot of the easier to crack CAPTCHAs use only a single font and render all the letters in 90 degree angles. The smarter ones jumble and warp the letters by shifting the each letter by an offset and rotating by a small angle. If you could figure out the direction of the warp or rotation, by checking the background you could unwarp or untwist the letters before running OCR on it. Or, you could test each isolated character by rotating every few degrees of rotation and selecting the result that outputs the most number of OCR'd characters from the least amount of rotation.
Regardless, the algorithm doesn't have to be perfect. It could be right 5% of the time and still generate thousands of email accounts. It doesn't care about rejections, because it's got all day to keep trying.
Yahoo's CAPTCHA just recently being broken that is.
If you've ever logged into Yahoo chat, you'll see names like warbot001 through warbot400. They're profiles which map to an email address and lame chatters use them to send DOS messages to other chatters. Kinda like the old days on IRC with ping flooding.
Anyway. I highly doubt they manually entered in 400 CAPTCHAS, and I've seen those accounts for a while now so I suspect that CAPTCHA has been defeated for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. It was just a question and a fairly harmless one at that. By the way, my sig was meant for folks like you. :D
And to think, YOU are the example of INSIGHTFUL. Way to set the bar pretty low. LOL.
Anyway. You have a reason to want privacy. Everyone does. Whether the reason is broad and abstract, such as a desire to relax in a safe space, or whether it's specific, such as fear of retribution, you still have a reason. If you don't have a reason, you're just a lowly animal getting by on stimulus/response.
You're probably a crow. Yea. That's fitting.
How do you throw freedom away?
All I can think of is...
- Whistle blowing: but, that could be done by pay phone or snail mail
- Police informant: but, that would be abused by false reports, plus police usually have less faith in anonymous reports, although anonymous child abuse reports are taken seriously
- Political message: ok, I understand that if you're living in a restricted country.
- Embarrassing stuff: sex diseases, sexual assault support, teen pregnancy, GLBT
- Illegal stuff: lots of potential for that
OK. So, do any of you have any reasons not on my list?You can be arrested for assault if you gently place the tip of your index finger on a police officer. And, any type of assault is violence as far as the government is concerned.
You can also be charged with assault if an officer trips over his clumsy feet, falls down, and hits his head while pursuing you, trying to apprehend you, or forcing you to leave the scene. You could very well be in the right, but if the officer gets hurt while dealing with you, you will be charged with assault.
It seems apparent to me Microsoft is filing ad patents because they intend to release a free or almost free version of a Vista-lite that's loaded with ad serving software to cover the expense loss. Inserting ad malware into their flagship product would be suicide. They're not that stupid.
Microsoft probably intends to compete with free Linux with a free Windows OS.
Why don't you come back when you actually try the thing you're freaking out about? Hmm? Might be a good thing to actually
try-before-you-cry
Heh.
Not enough sleep. The lack of sleep causes memory problems and insomnia is a growing sleep problem. I believe the average number of hours of sleep per night has been decreasing the last 50 years. Can't prove it. Although, look at the popularity of the latest sleep drugs.
I think it's easier among corporations, where there's likely to be an IT group and an inventory of hardware. If they're deploying java, then they're more likely to be setup to maintain updates. They already have a maintenance infrastructure.
It's the cell and home user I would be concerned about. They don't know what they have or why it's important to update.
I've also seen a lot of spam bots fitting a similar pattern but I assumed they were created by manually entering CAPTCHAs. A spammer has an incentive to spend a few days entering them, but a chatter does not. (If they do they're sick in the head).
I've seen both of those for at least 4-6 months. I wouldn't surprised if email spammers yanked the code from the chat booting clients. It probably also explains why Yahoo chat has had severe performance problems the last several months. I used to login to it when I was bored.
Courts and governments enforce. Not companies. Just stop injecting other's trademarks and copyrighted stuff into your art and there won't be a problem. Simple as that. I have no sympathy for one's belly aching if one does.
Anyway. My original point was there could be a happy medium where the two could merge. GW lets you insert trademarks in your work if you limit publishing of your work on GW's youtube clone site, otherwise they sue you within the guidelines of the law. As I said before, they would yield profits and credit because it's their trademark on your creation. You could still maintain ownership and author credit to satisfy the German law. By submitting your work, you would be licensing GW to publish your work on the site. If you wanted to take it elsewhere, you'd have to strip the trademarks and anything resembling copyrighted material.
The point is it could be done. If you say it it can't, then how else could trademarked products be co-branded in Germany? Think about that for a minute.
You're right. I made a conclusion in error: that you could understand my point without the training wheels.
slashdot = eager to assume
....for fans to submit work? Videos/art/themes/scripts/mods/etc.
GW gets the credit and any revenue generated; fans get to be creative.
If I was their CEO, that's the way I'd do it.
With new content, it hasn't been published very long so it hasn't gotten linked much so it may never accumulate thea number of links as compared to the stale content.
One other point. Not everyone knows that stale content is not relevant. It's easy to assume information that's 3 years old is still current if it's not your field, so you may be inclined to believe it's still relevant, which would fool the page ranking. Since there will be more amateurs than professionals reading or linking to each particular field, page ranking will be weighted toward the amateurs, which is the wrong choice to base relevancy on.
They'll notice I said "rarely". The exception is when it's the entire purpose of the blog and the articles are likely to cater to the audience.
I think anyone who's read more than 5 blogs has seen what you're talking about. They're maintained by those who have nothing in particular to say so they resort to itineraries of what occurred that day or worse by linking to articles they've read, offering no useful commentary or criticism for any of them. A blog that tries to be interesting by pointing to interesting blogs or articles is rarely interesting.
However, hope isn't lost for the ordinary and unknown blogger who wants to write about daily life or personal stories. You don't have to write about new technology, science, or all your great philosophical insights to build a great blog. If you approach every post as if you're writing a fictional short story, then you will write interesting personal stuff.
It starts with presenting a problem, which is arrived at quickly in the first couple of sentences (Act I). What follows is a series of increasing problems and complications, but leading up to a major problem (Act II), which is then resolved succinctly (Act III).
Most biographical stories can be presented in this way and hint toward a moral or point. If they can't, then there is no reason to blog it. It's boring. Although, it doesn't have to be discarded. It can be saved and grouped with other related stories that together present a more abstract problem and resolution.
The other type of blog is a comedy blog, however even funny stories need to be constructed with the same problem and resolution pattern. But remember comedy is difficult to pull off, although it's worth it when it works.
You don't have to be a world traveler, scientist, musician, politician, or any other sort of unusual or famous celebrity type to write a good blog, but you do have to blog only when something truly interesting did happen, meaning it fits the 3 Act model.
The rule is to write, but only publish when you actually have something to say, otherwise it will read like a grocery list. And, grocery lists are rarely fun (unless you find one on the ground with embarrassing items on written on it, heh).
That still hold in outer space? Given that up and down is difficult to determine...
Bah.
I mean both Yahoo and Hotmail respectively in the places where I only mention Yahoo.
Mail sent from these email accounts are going to run through different filters than external email would. Both providers are going to have more permissive filters for email sent from within Yahoo, so these accounts will be more effective than zombie machines especially if Yahoo and Hotmail haven't grasped that their CAPTCHAs were broken a while ago.
The email spams sent from the web forms aren't guaranteed to be bound to the same sending IP per account because it's all inside Yahoo and Hotmail's network and each web request will probably queue from a different IP and to a different mail queur (another different IP), because everything is going to be load balanced up the wazzoo with the amount of traffic they handle. However, with the zombies, each will fire off X number of emails and each off those will originate from the same non-Yahoo IP, which is easier to filter.
Most CAPTCHAs use images and random marks or dots in the background but those can be filtered out in a pre-processing step if you know they're drawn using a limited set of colors or don't use the same line thickness as the font. Photographic backgrounds will be limited so they could be filtered easily by detecting which background the CAPTCHA used for that session. Using an oversized background and shifting it by an offset would present difficulty, but Yahoo and Hotmail don't use background images. If backgrounds are rendered gradients, I think it's relatively easy to detect the font color by scanning for broken runs of a continuous single color. The gradient colors would deviate slightly, within a small percent change. If there is any repetitive pattern, which there is if it's a gradient, it only helps the filter breaking the CAPTCHA.
A lot of the easier to crack CAPTCHAs use only a single font and render all the letters in 90 degree angles. The smarter ones jumble and warp the letters by shifting the each letter by an offset and rotating by a small angle. If you could figure out the direction of the warp or rotation, by checking the background you could unwarp or untwist the letters before running OCR on it. Or, you could test each isolated character by rotating every few degrees of rotation and selecting the result that outputs the most number of OCR'd characters from the least amount of rotation.
Regardless, the algorithm doesn't have to be perfect. It could be right 5% of the time and still generate thousands of email accounts. It doesn't care about rejections, because it's got all day to keep trying.
FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~mori/research/gimpy/
By the way, some CAPTCHAS have been broken by not deleting sessions in the server, but I doubt Yahoo and Hotmail would be open to that bug.
Yahoo's CAPTCHA just recently being broken that is.
If you've ever logged into Yahoo chat, you'll see names like warbot001 through warbot400. They're profiles which map to an email address and lame chatters use them to send DOS messages to other chatters. Kinda like the old days on IRC with ping flooding.
Anyway. I highly doubt they manually entered in 400 CAPTCHAS, and I've seen those accounts for a while now so I suspect that CAPTCHA has been defeated for quite some time.
I wonder if he could be busted. It's public radio.