1) "on a poorly protected server"--seems likely to be that one that was mentioned just yesterday here on slashdot, where MS employees were putting internal documents on a publically accessable server. If you pull data off there, it's not hacking, it's not illegal, it's just stupidity on MS's part. If not that particular one, I would hardly be surprised if others didn't have the same problem.
2) As for eating your own dogfood, that's a really common phrase. Perhaps it's inappropriate in a formal analysis, but it's not clear that this whitepaper, which sounds like an internal-only document (in intention anyway), was particularly formal. "We bought hotmail, they use unix, which appears better than our stuff because of xyz reasons..." (I seem to recall they had a meltdown the first time they tried to migrate to all Windows equipment) "...in summary we ought to be using our products, since we tell everyone else in the world that our products can do the job; i.e. we should eat our own dogfood." Seems a perfectly reasonable internal analysis to me.
Did you read the first point? If it's equally unique, there is theoretically possible that it's mappable back to my credit card number. Just look at the "hash" algorithms used by the censorware companies for a prime example of how companies tend to use the easiest hash, not the best.
They use a perfect hash which is trackable backwards to my card number, or
They use an imperfect hash, which confuses me with the porn addict down the block.
Brilliant idea. Or do you really expect that the people writing the software to do this care enough to statistically analyze the number of customers that are likely to come up with a "good enough" hash? I don't.
It doesn't aggregate the same way because of limitations on what they can do with records of your credit card number. If they keep a persistent record of credit card numbers and it gets cracked, there's a lot more liability involved for them.....
It's called a calculator. They're cheep, so this is not a particular barrier to "have nots". Or if you want to be REALLY high tech, you can use a palm pilot.
C'mon people, how damned lazy do you have to be? If you need to track your money that closely, you can do it without the annoying crap. If you aren't already doing so, spoonfeeding it by placing it in the cart isn't likely to help.
This sounds about as useful as the java enabled gas pumps at BP/Amoco, that allegedly let you check weather, traffic, etc. while you're pumping gas. Sorry, but I get back into my car to listen to the radio for those things--it's more comfortable, and more reliable. There's nothing like seeing your gas pump spew a huge java stacktrace (the good news is that it doesn't affect the transaction of buying gas, it just blows up the browsing functions).
I thought the whole point of this being a demo of a graphics card was that all you had to do was define the polys and some surface characteristics, and most of the rest of it was gravy. I've seen CGI boobs (e.g. Tripping the Rift), and they suck, and I was talking about other "bits" anyway.
Getting skin over most the body, where it's toned and supported by bone & muscle, to look "good" in cgi is a hard problem but one that's mostly solved (the fairy's face for example looked great). But other types of skin still haven't been mastered with the resolution that would make them worth the trouble for virtual porn, unless you're into plastic parts anyway. That was my point.
Are you kidding? Interesting and realistic looking...uh..."bits" are going to probably be harder to do than hair. And the hair isn't all that great on this demo.
It's amazing how many people ignore the fact that PG means "Parental Guidance" and refuse to bother doing the necessary research to provide that guidance.
That would be "wicca". And as a matter of fact it's not remotely glorified by Potter, because wicca is not about spells and wands and wizardry.
Re:Not to be nitpicking...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There was a good story turning the frog princess fairy tale on its head in Fantasy & Science Fiction, about a year ago (that's how far behind I am in reading them, so I actually read it very recently.
Some research on the fsfmag website turns up "Warts and All" by Esther Friesner in the March 2001 issue. Strongly recommended.
Ah, quitcherbitchin.:-) At least they took the story. I submitted the stuff about Poindexter and the DARPA info awareness office 45 days ago, but I suppose it's only news if William Safire notices it too.
2) The people I'm most worried about are the agencies that have shown in the past that they abuse the information. The local principal doesn't have enough time to do major damage, and probably is a lot more likely to be corrected by a lawsuit if he targets someone improperly.
Can you point to one example where a Republican who has spouted that tired line has actually followed through when given the chance to rule? I can't. This is the other side of the Liberal tolerance issue: liberals claim to be tolerant, but are frequently utterly and rudely intolerant of those who think differently from them about particular issues. Conservatives claim to want smaller government, until they have the opportunity to accomplish it at which time they simply build the government up in different ways.
Dubya has not overturned, nor even ATTEMPTED to overturn hardly any of Clinton's "big government" programs like Americorps etc. Until he starts really shrinking the government, you can keep your tired claims. Clue: it hasn't happened yet.
What ISP faced with the power of the FBI demanding information is going to be stupid enough to refuse? When they could pay the price instead? The ISPs will sell you out in a second, and just not tell you.
Go read some "liberal" discussion boards sometime, where they are self-righteous about stopping intolerance, but the minute you mention "republican" regardless of context they fall all over themselves to demonstrate it. The Right has no monopoly on intolerant behavior, and are a lot less hypocritical about it in the main. I may not like Newt's biases, but at least he's up front about most of them.
If you knew some of the librarians I have known, you'd realize there are a lot more sexually deviant librarians out there than you think:-).
Which really has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the federal government should stay the hell out of the business of censoring our public libraries.
Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well.
For some definitions of reasonable. For the definitions of customers who rely on their web services to be "always on", I'd argue that they do them pretty damn poorly though. Having experts on staff, for one example, helps ensure that you have someone who can aggressively resolve any issues that do arise. And if MSFT doesn't "need" any experts, then what are all these certifications they're always touting for?
Slashdot Mirror
2) As for eating your own dogfood, that's a really common phrase. Perhaps it's inappropriate in a formal analysis, but it's not clear that this whitepaper, which sounds like an internal-only document (in intention anyway), was particularly formal. "We bought hotmail, they use unix, which appears better than our stuff because of xyz reasons..." (I seem to recall they had a meltdown the first time they tried to migrate to all Windows equipment) "...in summary we ought to be using our products, since we tell everyone else in the world that our products can do the job; i.e. we should eat our own dogfood." Seems a perfectly reasonable internal analysis to me.
Did you read the first point? If it's equally unique, there is theoretically possible that it's mappable back to my credit card number. Just look at the "hash" algorithms used by the censorware companies for a prime example of how companies tend to use the easiest hash, not the best.
Either
Brilliant idea. Or do you really expect that the people writing the software to do this care enough to statistically analyze the number of customers that are likely to come up with a "good enough" hash? I don't.
And of course the discounts aren't "real". They simply jack the prices and give you the old price if you sign up to be tracked.
Or hell, go look for yourself at the link in my sig.
It doesn't aggregate the same way because of limitations on what they can do with records of your credit card number. If they keep a persistent record of credit card numbers and it gets cracked, there's a lot more liability involved for them.....
C'mon people, how damned lazy do you have to be? If you need to track your money that closely, you can do it without the annoying crap. If you aren't already doing so, spoonfeeding it by placing it in the cart isn't likely to help.
This sounds about as useful as the java enabled gas pumps at BP/Amoco, that allegedly let you check weather, traffic, etc. while you're pumping gas. Sorry, but I get back into my car to listen to the radio for those things--it's more comfortable, and more reliable. There's nothing like seeing your gas pump spew a huge java stacktrace (the good news is that it doesn't affect the transaction of buying gas, it just blows up the browsing functions).
Getting skin over most the body, where it's toned and supported by bone & muscle, to look "good" in cgi is a hard problem but one that's mostly solved (the fairy's face for example looked great). But other types of skin still haven't been mastered with the resolution that would make them worth the trouble for virtual porn, unless you're into plastic parts anyway. That was my point.
Are you kidding? Interesting and realistic looking...uh..."bits" are going to probably be harder to do than hair. And the hair isn't all that great on this demo.
It's amazing how many people ignore the fact that PG means "Parental Guidance" and refuse to bother doing the necessary research to provide that guidance.
That would be "wicca". And as a matter of fact it's not remotely glorified by Potter, because wicca is not about spells and wands and wizardry.
Some research on the fsfmag website turns up "Warts and All" by Esther Friesner in the March 2001 issue. Strongly recommended.
Ah, quitcherbitchin. :-) At least they took the story. I submitted the stuff about Poindexter and the DARPA info awareness office 45 days ago, but I suppose it's only news if William Safire notices it too.
2) The people I'm most worried about are the agencies that have shown in the past that they abuse the information. The local principal doesn't have enough time to do major damage, and probably is a lot more likely to be corrected by a lawsuit if he targets someone improperly.
Are you scared now?
Dubya has not overturned, nor even ATTEMPTED to overturn hardly any of Clinton's "big government" programs like Americorps etc. Until he starts really shrinking the government, you can keep your tired claims. Clue: it hasn't happened yet.
What ISP faced with the power of the FBI demanding information is going to be stupid enough to refuse? When they could pay the price instead? The ISPs will sell you out in a second, and just not tell you.
Go read some "liberal" discussion boards sometime, where they are self-righteous about stopping intolerance, but the minute you mention "republican" regardless of context they fall all over themselves to demonstrate it. The Right has no monopoly on intolerant behavior, and are a lot less hypocritical about it in the main. I may not like Newt's biases, but at least he's up front about most of them.
Maybe because, apart from the virus/bacterium thing, it's 100% correct?
No matter what kind of infection it is, you should still take all your meds.
Ah, so if I were to argue you should take all your meds because otherwise the elves will take you away, that's informative too?
And how is this informative? Antibiotics don't do a damn thing for VIRAL infections.
Which really has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the federal government should stay the hell out of the business of censoring our public libraries.
For some definitions of reasonable. For the definitions of customers who rely on their web services to be "always on", I'd argue that they do them pretty damn poorly though. Having experts on staff, for one example, helps ensure that you have someone who can aggressively resolve any issues that do arise. And if MSFT doesn't "need" any experts, then what are all these certifications they're always touting for?
Might try some other countries while we're at it....
Isn't Disney's motto "don't fuck with the mouse"??