First of all, the chances of that happening are extremely low. Second, if it was happening there is nothing you could do about it from the movie theater. That's why you hired the baby sitter. If you're really so worried, you could just not go to the movies in the first place.
That's exactly the problem. Banks don't have any liability in the case of fraud, so they don't have any incentive to fix it. If banks were as responsible for accounts as credit card companies are for theirs then bank accounts would have much better security. Until then, this will always be a problem.
For example, if a credit card is stolen the holder is only responsible for up to $50 in losses, and if only the number is stolen it's no more than $0. By law. This puts a lot of pressure on credit card companies to take care of security, which is why they do things like call their customers when something looks unusual.
You can report sites that use cloaking here: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html .
I don't know what good it does since the sites I have reported have never been acted upon.
It comes down to a lack of energy. Flipping a bit takes a minimum amount of energy, kT, where T is the absolute temperature of the system and k is the Boltzman constant. If you were to build a Dyson sphere around the sun and capture all it's energy perfectly an ideal computer using all this energy without loss would only be able to count up to 2^192 in 32 years. As Bruce says in that linked article, "[B]rute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space."
The reason to use a longer key is not to make brute-force attempts take longer, as brute-forcing even 128 bits is never going to be possible, but to cover for potential weaknesses in the cryptographic algorithm that might reduce the strength of the key.
The RMS one wasn't a sexist comment. It was a parody of religion. The people accusing him of sexism just didn't get the joke. It's like accusing Dave Chappelle of racism.
The Ruby on Rails thing though, that's a perfect example of geek sexism at it's worst.
I'm drawing on my experience with image processing and what I know of it's current capabilities. I've worked on programs to do this sort of thing. So, yes, I "know some shit" about this subject.
We're just not yet at the point where a program could be given an arbitrary image and have it recognize a wide variety of objects in the image. For example, take a single picture of a dog in a park (that is, no stereo imagery, or video, here): we don't have algorithms yet that can recognize the dog as an individual object, recognize it as a dog, and then segment that dog from the image. You might be able to write a pretty good program that specifically finds dogs in an image that is guaranteed to have dogs (like digital cameras recognizing human faces), but it wouldn't be useful as soon as you want it to find something else in addition to dogs. It would frequently see dogs where there aren't any.
Segmenting and object recognition is a lot easier given a pair of stereo images, because the 3D structure of the image is available, but that would greatly reduce the pool of available images. They couldn't be just yanked off Flickr. In video, moving objects are easy to find and segment, even if the camera is moving, but then you'd need video for all the input. Our human brains can recognize distinct objects in a single, flat image because they make may assumptions about the structure of the image, based on instinct and experience, filling in for the incomplete data. This has been hard to do with AI.
We're just starting to have programs that can recognize arbitrarily rotated, rigid, static objects -- like a shoe or a specific tea pot -- under very controlled circumstances (I know someone that was researching this). So, I'd bet their input images for PhotoSketch already have all the recognizing and segmenting done for them by humans. The sketch would be limited to whatever objects humans decided to mark up.
Building that input image library, marking it all up for the computer (object category, segmentation mask, perspective), would be a slow, tedious, and expensive, making this ultimately not very useful. The library would always seem inadequate for everything but trivial sketches.
Given a library with the necessary objects (correct type and perspective) putting these together in a plausable way seems like the part that would actually work fairly well.
So that's why I'm skeptical that this doesn't work nearly as well as advertised.
This seems to be either a hoax or will be extremely limited in ways they aren't discussing, as to have little use. If the examples they are showing are real, the image data set they are pulling from must have been manually processed and adorned with hand-made metadata.
This falls too much into the "too good to be true" category for me to believe it.
The registry, a convoluted mess of a database, is edited through that GUI monstrosity called regedit, manipulating such user-friendly paths as "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Identities\{F0DEC1B5-2C0A-481C-9567-4B0F76BC38C1}\Software". It can't be properly versioned and it grows cruft over time despite "registry cleaners".
Or I could stick to plain text files -- whose name follows the software they are configuring, so there is very little "hunting" -- with built-in documentation (comments) using the powerful text-manipulation tools of unix and/or a powerful text editor with which I have thousands of hours of experience editing with. I can easily version/etc with my favorite revision control system if I felt I needed to (Debian even has a special package for doing this), and my package manager removes the config files when their corresponding software is uninstalled, so no cruft ever. I can directly edit all this configuration without a GUI over a text-based remote login (i.e. ssh) if needed.
Unix-like text configuration beats the pants off that embarrassment called the Windows registry.
Almost all ssh attacks are automated, and if you're not running something on port 22, you won't be attacked.
Right on with that. When I was on port 22 I was hit every day. Since I moved to port 443 (https) I haven't seen a single ssh login attempt that wasn't me.
Almost everyone running Plura's crap is unaware of it. It's embedded in web pages like advertising. For example, you know the highly popular Desktop Tower Defense?
Putting a properly encoded video or audio file in a rar or zip archive will only result in a bigger file, as the media is already well compressed. That is, doing this is absolutely pointless.
You seem to think that "freedom of speech" is the freedom to say or do anything.
Except for the "do" part, which isn't speech, that's exactly what freedom of speech is. Even vile, icky speech must be defended, because someone else gets to decide what is vile. If it's "freedom to only say things that are not bad" that's just censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the chances of that happening are extremely low. Second, if it was happening there is nothing you could do about it from the movie theater. That's why you hired the baby sitter. If you're really so worried, you could just not go to the movies in the first place.
Let's just drop www altogether!
That's exactly the problem. Banks don't have any liability in the case of fraud, so they don't have any incentive to fix it. If banks were as responsible for accounts as credit card companies are for theirs then bank accounts would have much better security. Until then, this will always be a problem.
For example, if a credit card is stolen the holder is only responsible for up to $50 in losses, and if only the number is stolen it's no more than $0. By law. This puts a lot of pressure on credit card companies to take care of security, which is why they do things like call their customers when something looks unusual.
You can report sites that use cloaking here: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html . I don't know what good it does since the sites I have reported have never been acted upon.
Exactly, we simply won't be able to collect enough energy to do computation at the speed of theoretical limits.
It comes down to a lack of energy. Flipping a bit takes a minimum amount of energy, kT, where T is the absolute temperature of the system and k is the Boltzman constant. If you were to build a Dyson sphere around the sun and capture all it's energy perfectly an ideal computer using all this energy without loss would only be able to count up to 2^192 in 32 years. As Bruce says in that linked article, "[B]rute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space."
The reason to use a longer key is not to make brute-force attempts take longer, as brute-forcing even 128 bits is never going to be possible, but to cover for potential weaknesses in the cryptographic algorithm that might reduce the strength of the key.
According to the article you linked it's 40% of income tax revenue, or 19% of all revenue. Still awful, though.
The RMS one wasn't a sexist comment. It was a parody of religion. The people accusing him of sexism just didn't get the joke. It's like accusing Dave Chappelle of racism.
The Ruby on Rails thing though, that's a perfect example of geek sexism at it's worst.
Since when does a wedding couple look like a tall rectangle? That's what they drew in the video yet they got what they wanted.
Why? What are you basing that assessment on?
I'm drawing on my experience with image processing and what I know of it's current capabilities. I've worked on programs to do this sort of thing. So, yes, I "know some shit" about this subject.
We're just not yet at the point where a program could be given an arbitrary image and have it recognize a wide variety of objects in the image. For example, take a single picture of a dog in a park (that is, no stereo imagery, or video, here): we don't have algorithms yet that can recognize the dog as an individual object, recognize it as a dog, and then segment that dog from the image. You might be able to write a pretty good program that specifically finds dogs in an image that is guaranteed to have dogs (like digital cameras recognizing human faces), but it wouldn't be useful as soon as you want it to find something else in addition to dogs. It would frequently see dogs where there aren't any.
Segmenting and object recognition is a lot easier given a pair of stereo images, because the 3D structure of the image is available, but that would greatly reduce the pool of available images. They couldn't be just yanked off Flickr. In video, moving objects are easy to find and segment, even if the camera is moving, but then you'd need video for all the input. Our human brains can recognize distinct objects in a single, flat image because they make may assumptions about the structure of the image, based on instinct and experience, filling in for the incomplete data. This has been hard to do with AI.
We're just starting to have programs that can recognize arbitrarily rotated, rigid, static objects -- like a shoe or a specific tea pot -- under very controlled circumstances (I know someone that was researching this). So, I'd bet their input images for PhotoSketch already have all the recognizing and segmenting done for them by humans. The sketch would be limited to whatever objects humans decided to mark up.
Building that input image library, marking it all up for the computer (object category, segmentation mask, perspective), would be a slow, tedious, and expensive, making this ultimately not very useful. The library would always seem inadequate for everything but trivial sketches.
Given a library with the necessary objects (correct type and perspective) putting these together in a plausable way seems like the part that would actually work fairly well.
So that's why I'm skeptical that this doesn't work nearly as well as advertised.
This seems to be either a hoax or will be extremely limited in ways they aren't discussing, as to have little use. If the examples they are showing are real, the image data set they are pulling from must have been manually processed and adorned with hand-made metadata.
This falls too much into the "too good to be true" category for me to believe it.
I am not a number! I am a free man!
The registry, a convoluted mess of a database, is edited through that GUI monstrosity called regedit, manipulating such user-friendly paths as "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Identities\{F0DEC1B5-2C0A-481C-9567-4B0F76BC38C1}\Software". It can't be properly versioned and it grows cruft over time despite "registry cleaners".
Or I could stick to plain text files -- whose name follows the software they are configuring, so there is very little "hunting" -- with built-in documentation (comments) using the powerful text-manipulation tools of unix and/or a powerful text editor with which I have thousands of hours of experience editing with. I can easily version /etc with my favorite revision control system if I felt I needed to (Debian even has a special package for doing this), and my package manager removes the config files when their corresponding software is uninstalled, so no cruft ever. I can directly edit all this configuration without a GUI over a text-based remote login (i.e. ssh) if needed.
Unix-like text configuration beats the pants off that embarrassment called the Windows registry.
Yeah yeah, I know, linux officially just denotes the kernel etc., but really, no-one cares.
Obviously people do care, troll.
Almost all ssh attacks are automated, and if you're not running something on port 22, you won't be attacked.
Right on with that. When I was on port 22 I was hit every day. Since I moved to port 443 (https) I haven't seen a single ssh login attempt that wasn't me.
I agree with Jah-Wren Ryel, and have friends that also agree, so it's obviously not "no one".
Time for me to delete my social networking accounts methinks
You can't. It's cursed.
You, sir, just made my day.
a country that bans prayer in school.
This has never been true in the US. Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true.
Almost everyone running Plura's crap is unaware of it. It's embedded in web pages like advertising. For example, you know the highly popular Desktop Tower Defense?
http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game.asp
Look at the page sources. There's a Plura bug on it running the whole time you're playing the game. They've already been doing this for a long time.
An SI addict would have the right sigfigs too,
367.382 mph = 591.244 km/hr
Putting a properly encoded video or audio file in a rar or zip archive will only result in a bigger file, as the media is already well compressed. That is, doing this is absolutely pointless.
But why... why... why... would he try to change Firefox? He can't get to the ribbon so he's trying make the ribbon to come to him!
You seem to think that "freedom of speech" is the freedom to say or do anything.
Except for the "do" part, which isn't speech, that's exactly what freedom of speech is. Even vile, icky speech must be defended, because someone else gets to decide what is vile. If it's "freedom to only say things that are not bad" that's just censorship.
I think was the biggest whoosh I've ever seen on Slashdot. Thanks, you made my day!
In the Western world we patent food instead. See Monsanto.