I still flag crap like this as spam, so it seems like it'd train my spam filter to have more false positives, no?
No. Unless the people you usually corresponde with also include blocks of the same text.
The only way to increase the false positives is to get the spam filter to learn the words that usually appear in your legitimate messages.
Since the spammers have no way of knowing what those words are, there is no way they can bypass your filters... and still be effective in getting through any one else's filters.
About the only way I can see this working is if the keyboard had a buffer. Not only to capture your keystrokes, but to also pass them to the application.
The keyboard would have to establish a standard delay for each packet and then lengthen/shorten that delay to indicate 0 or 1.
If you're doing a lot of typing (like I am right now on/.), then should be easy for the keyboard to set the timing.
If I start uploading a file or something else, then the system won't be able to transmit data during that process.
So, this is a potential threat... in very limited circumstances... for very restricted input options.
Not to mention that the attacker has to have a sniffer between you and the first router on your network. Otherwise that router will be introducing its own delays and further scramble the timing.
In your example (Miscarriage of Justice suits), the bad cops are an even bigger problem. Not only for the wrongful arrests and such, but also because their actions cost the taxpayers even more money.
So, instead, why not just garnish the cop's wages to pay any fines?
Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for a bad cop's stupidity?
Step #2. No services running that are not absolutely essential.
The idea is to reduce the number of available avenues for attacks. Then you can focus on protecting/hardening the apps that are running. Such as (on Linux) putting them in a chroot jail.
Now, mind you, they did a bad job of integrating the personal stuff with the action stuff (BSG does a DAMNED good job of this), but it was the first good step in the direction of humanistic sci-fi.
The problem with Star Trek is that the action is the means for the characters to "win". Yeah, that sounds really basic and stupid, but think about it for a moment.
Some naive, young cadet leave Star Fleet Acadamy for his/her first space ship assignment. That character SHOULD have a completely different outlook and personality than the captain of that ship.
Now, after 30 years of space battles, friends being eaten by alien energy beings, etc..., that cadet, now in charge of his own ship, might have an outlook and personality very close to the original captain's... but it is the ACTION that shaped him during those 30 years.
In most of the Star Trek episodes, the characters already know the "right" thing to do. The action just implements that and reinforces that their decisions are "right" and that the opposition is "evil" or "mis-guided" or whatever.
Meanwhile, in real life, people have to make tough choices and the consequences of those choices change our outlook and affect the choices we make after that.
Particularly with how Dax was killed by evil ghosts while on a quest to save the Orb of Prophecy so The Emissary could perform the Rite of X and seal the Portal of Y.
They ran out of real story so they tried to stitch in a DnD plot line and they ended up with the standard fantasy cardboard characters.
Humans + machines == Borg Humans + alies == Trill Humans mating with aliens == Spock Hell, they even have Wesley gaining warp capability.
The Borg are the enemy. All the others are sub to pure humans. They don't have the guts to go with a storyline where the pure humans are sub to transhumans.
Except for the final couple of seasons. Then it sucked.
And TOS was damn good when it was released. It doesn't look that as cutting edge now, because the edge has moved on.
The problem is that the Star Trek franchise has not kept up with the edge. Now they're afraid of the edge. They don't want to make a show that small core will love for years and years and years. They want a show that almost everyone will sort of like and probably watch every week. They want "Friends"... but in space. With the foam head of the month "alien".
They want "episodes", not stories.
They want light, cute actors, not developed characters.
You do not "reason" with the group. You deny them new recruits.
Trying to win the heart and minds of their recruitment ranks through passive response to provocation is pointless.
There is some reason those recruits are joining them. Remove that reason and you remove the recruits.
Hezbullah's raison d'etre is to kill Jews. They have no other legitimate reason to exist.
Why do their recruits want "to kill Jews"?
If that means some lebanese will be manufactured into junior Hezbullah, so be. All the rats in one trap.
That approach has failed in the past. Why will this time be different?
The civilian deaths have much of the international community in an uproar. That is hezbullah's goal: to increase the cost of Israeli action.
So they aren't "shields" as such.
A Christian, Sunni, or Druse will never join Hezbullah, only Shia. There is nothing to be done about it except let them fight until there is a clear winner.
Historically, Christians and Sunni have both fought against Jews. So you're argument is little more than hair-splitting. And there is no reason that Sunni militants could not again fight against Israel.
Disproportionality is the only way to deal with terrorists.
No, that just creates more terrorists.
If I were an Israeli I would not relish the prospect of being terrorised forever at an ever more lethal intensity. I would want to irradicate the problem.
Emotional response leads to emotional response and the situation never changes.
Hezbullah uses civilians as shields, launching attacks from aprtment buildings, residential areas.. If Hezbullah stopped doing this there would be no civilian casualties. Israel's only recourse is to ignore them in pursuit of the enemy.
I see that argument a lot.
If they're using civilians as "shields", but those "shields" don't stop the attacks, then why are they still using them as "shields"?
An easier explanation is that they target them where they believe they live. And if civilians also live there, too bad.
They target them where they believe they gather. And if civilians are also there, too bad.
Then, when the civilians are killed, claim that the "bad guys" were using them as "shields" again. Even when they've never worked as "shields".
And when you kill an innocent civilian, you've just given his/her family and friends a reason to join the "bad guys".
He thought he was getting the disk through a "loop hole" where he could buy it if he also bought some "hardware".
You may recall that XP MCE 2005 is now available for purchase thanks to a loophole in the product's licensing terms. To get around the legal requirements, retailers simply have to sell you some kind of computer hardware along with the software; mine came with a USB cable that I promptly threw away.
So he was buying from a company that he knew was already playing a little loose with the rules.
So, a company willing to bend rules is also willing to break laws? Big surprise.
The real surprise is that he wouldn't check the software. And that he'd forget how he got it. And so on and so forth.
It is possible with items that take no physical space (music on your iPod or NetFlix rentals), but not so with anything else.
For items that take physical space, the limitation will be the space available to the average consumer.
If 100 titles account for 90% of your sales and you have 1,000 titles that account for the other 10%, adding 10,000 titles will just give people 11,100 options to take up their limited space. If they have space for 100 items, then most of them will be focusing on the same top 100.
The point of TFA is that these are becoming cheap enough to allow ordinary people to set them up, not just the cops.
Yep. And the cops have SOME oversight on their actions. And we've all heard the reports of cops going bad.
Now, this technology will be in the hands of people without ANY oversight.
I want this stuff made available to the general public. I don't want it to be the private data of the cops, or the politicians who control the cops. I want everybody to be able to snoop on those politicians just as they snoop on the people they want to control.
Sure, some people will track the vehicles of politicians.
Who knows? You might be able to catch the mayor driving to a site where he'll be accepting a huge box of money as a bribe. Not likely, but it's possible.
More likely is that this data will be collected by people without any oversight and used for stalking victims.
We have other means of dealing with political corruption. We don't need to make it easier for the stalkers.
More people can tell you who their favourite celebrity was last seen kissing than can name their Congress Critters. These will be used almost exclusively to track private individuals.
As you (or the vehicle licensed to you) move though public places, your movements may be noted. That's all there is to it.
And if there were someone hanging out in a public place, making notes of what vehicles he sees, that would be one thing. Someone would be sure to call the cops to report a "possible terrorist" who is casing the place.
But with this technology, someone can record the plate numbers without his actions being noticed.
And once you remove the possiblity of the surveillance being observed, you open a whole new set of issues.
All it would take is for someone to start offering info on license plates for price. Buy a couple of these and just cruise around, collecting plates and GPS coordinates (with a date/time stamp).
See a cute girl in a bar? Just get her plate number when she leaves. The cough up the cash and you can find where her car is normally seen. Like where she lives and where she works.
You know, I'd rather take my chances that my car won't be recovered (most of them are stolen for "joy rides" anyway and the most of the rest are chopped) or that someone without insurance will crash into me.
And yes, once the technology is available, SOMEONE will sell the info it gathers.
And they appear to be meaningless. Particularly the last one with Rammstein listed across from Britney Spears. Lots of coloured lines with lots of intersections... and what does it mean? What information is conveyed in this manner?
... I also have a blog which is about linux and pre-1662 hammared silver coins... does that make me a nerd?
If you include current events related to Linux, are you now a "journalist"?
What about current events regarding "pre-1662 hammared silver coins"? Such as new books being published or shows? Would that make you a "journalist" specialising in such coins?
Is someone who writes for a Linux magazine a "journalist"? Is someone who covers coin shows for a coin magazine a "journalist"?
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to increase the false positives is to get the spam filter to learn the words that usually appear in your legitimate messages.
Since the spammers have no way of knowing what those words are, there is no way they can bypass your filters
About the only way I can see this working is if the keyboard had a buffer. Not only to capture your keystrokes, but to also pass them to the application.
/.), then should be easy for the keyboard to set the timing.
... in very limited circumstances ... for very restricted input options.
The keyboard would have to establish a standard delay for each packet and then lengthen/shorten that delay to indicate 0 or 1.
If you're doing a lot of typing (like I am right now on
If I start uploading a file or something else, then the system won't be able to transmit data during that process.
So, this is a potential threat
Not to mention that the attacker has to have a sniffer between you and the first router on your network. Otherwise that router will be introducing its own delays and further scramble the timing.
#1. It's more difficult to issue updated software in firmware.
#2. It's another chip. Software is far cheaper than hardware for OEM's.
What do you view as Red Hat's advantage over Ubuntu that Ubuntu will not be able to easily/quickly replicate?
But you could have gotten the same production value and content from just about any 10 year old kid on your block. For $20.
Which is why I say that any PR company that produced that is seriously over paid.
Amateurs can (and have) produced amazing content (that still looks amateurishly produced) on the Internet in the past. This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI
And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.
Bandwidth isn't cheap if you become popular.
Providing a site that is supported via Google ads and such would save those artists from having to come up with the bandwidth cash themselves.
In your example (Miscarriage of Justice suits), the bad cops are an even bigger problem. Not only for the wrongful arrests and such, but also because their actions cost the taxpayers even more money.
So, instead, why not just garnish the cop's wages to pay any fines?
Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for a bad cop's stupidity?
Step #1. No open ports.
Step #2. No services running that are not absolutely essential.
The idea is to reduce the number of available avenues for attacks. Then you can focus on protecting/hardening the apps that are running. Such as (on Linux) putting them in a chroot jail.
The problem with Star Trek is that the action is the means for the characters to "win". Yeah, that sounds really basic and stupid, but think about it for a moment.
Some naive, young cadet leave Star Fleet Acadamy for his/her first space ship assignment. That character SHOULD have a completely different outlook and personality than the captain of that ship.
Now, after 30 years of space battles, friends being eaten by alien energy beings, etc..., that cadet, now in charge of his own ship, might have an outlook and personality very close to the original captain's
In most of the Star Trek episodes, the characters already know the "right" thing to do. The action just implements that and reinforces that their decisions are "right" and that the opposition is "evil" or "mis-guided" or whatever.
Meanwhile, in real life, people have to make tough choices and the consequences of those choices change our outlook and affect the choices we make after that.
I have to agree on the "plot device" bit.
Particularly with how Dax was killed by evil ghosts while on a quest to save the Orb of Prophecy so The Emissary could perform the Rite of X and seal the Portal of Y.
They ran out of real story so they tried to stitch in a DnD plot line and they ended up with the standard fantasy cardboard characters.
Humans + machines == Borg
Humans + alies == Trill
Humans mating with aliens == Spock
Hell, they even have Wesley gaining warp capability.
The Borg are the enemy. All the others are sub to pure humans. They don't have the guts to go with a storyline where the pure humans are sub to transhumans.
Except for the final couple of seasons. Then it sucked.
... but in space. With the foam head of the month "alien".
And TOS was damn good when it was released. It doesn't look that as cutting edge now, because the edge has moved on.
The problem is that the Star Trek franchise has not kept up with the edge. Now they're afraid of the edge. They don't want to make a show that small core will love for years and years and years. They want a show that almost everyone will sort of like and probably watch every week. They want "Friends"
They want "episodes", not stories.
They want light, cute actors, not developed characters.
You do not "reason" with the group. You deny them new recruits.
There is some reason those recruits are joining them. Remove that reason and you remove the recruits.
Why do their recruits want "to kill Jews"?
That approach has failed in the past. Why will this time be different?
So they aren't "shields" as such.
Historically, Christians and Sunni have both fought against Jews. So you're argument is little more than hair-splitting. And there is no reason that Sunni militants could not again fight against Israel.
No, that just creates more terrorists.
Emotional response leads to emotional response and the situation never changes.
I see that argument a lot.
If they're using civilians as "shields", but those "shields" don't stop the attacks, then why are they still using them as "shields"?
An easier explanation is that they target them where they believe they live. And if civilians also live there, too bad.
They target them where they believe they gather. And if civilians are also there, too bad.
Then, when the civilians are killed, claim that the "bad guys" were using them as "shields" again. Even when they've never worked as "shields".
And when you kill an innocent civilian, you've just given his/her family and friends a reason to join the "bad guys".
So he was buying from a company that he knew was already playing a little loose with the rules.
So, a company willing to bend rules is also willing to break laws? Big surprise.
The real surprise is that he wouldn't check the software. And that he'd forget how he got it. And so on and so forth.
This story is just
If you put 8 core procs in desktop machines, software will be written that will take advantage of them. Which means you'll sell more 8 core procs.
Are you going to lead or follow?
This is an Outlook/IE "virus" who's payload is a keylogger and crap that hooks into Firefox.
This does not exploit any vulnerability in Firefox.
If your OS is not secure, no app running on it can be secured.
It is possible with items that take no physical space (music on your iPod or NetFlix rentals), but not so with anything else.
For items that take physical space, the limitation will be the space available to the average consumer.
If 100 titles account for 90% of your sales and you have 1,000 titles that account for the other 10%, adding 10,000 titles will just give people 11,100 options to take up their limited space. If they have space for 100 items, then most of them will be focusing on the same top 100.
Yep. And the cops have SOME oversight on their actions. And we've all heard the reports of cops going bad.
Now, this technology will be in the hands of people without ANY oversight.
Sure, some people will track the vehicles of politicians.
Who knows? You might be able to catch the mayor driving to a site where he'll be accepting a huge box of money as a bribe. Not likely, but it's possible.
More likely is that this data will be collected by people without any oversight and used for stalking victims.
We have other means of dealing with political corruption. We don't need to make it easier for the stalkers.
More people can tell you who their favourite celebrity was last seen kissing than can name their Congress Critters. These will be used almost exclusively to track private individuals.
And if there were someone hanging out in a public place, making notes of what vehicles he sees, that would be one thing. Someone would be sure to call the cops to report a "possible terrorist" who is casing the place.
But with this technology, someone can record the plate numbers without his actions being noticed.
And once you remove the possiblity of the surveillance being observed, you open a whole new set of issues.
All it would take is for someone to start offering info on license plates for price. Buy a couple of these and just cruise around, collecting plates and GPS coordinates (with a date/time stamp).
See a cute girl in a bar? Just get her plate number when she leaves. The cough up the cash and you can find where her car is normally seen. Like where she lives and where she works.
You know, I'd rather take my chances that my car won't be recovered (most of them are stolen for "joy rides" anyway and the most of the rest are chopped) or that someone without insurance will crash into me.
And yes, once the technology is available, SOMEONE will sell the info it gathers.
Yep, they're pretty.
... and what does it mean? What information is conveyed in this manner?
And they appear to be meaningless. Particularly the last one with Rammstein listed across from Britney Spears. Lots of coloured lines with lots of intersections
If you include current events related to Linux, are you now a "journalist"?
What about current events regarding "pre-1662 hammared silver coins"? Such as new books being published or shows? Would that make you a "journalist" specialising in such coins?
Is someone who writes for a Linux magazine a "journalist"? Is someone who covers coin shows for a coin magazine a "journalist"?
Case in point, Internet Explorer. Which Microsoft has previously claimed was part of the OS.