Lawmakers have done nothing. Lobbyists beholden to special interests have handed their pet congressmen a "new set" of rules they want to play by for the next half. If it passes it will be "reform" in terms of "changing the form" not in terms of "fixing the problems." Don't look for the elimination of software patents, a change in the basic requirements to get a patent, the length of a patent, OR a reduction in the complexity of the USPTO process.
This is a misleading tag, but I don't blame the OP. This is just the message being put out by the marketing arm of the lobbyists who own the congressmen to whom they gave the "reform" to.
Ehud
P.S. Mods: Before you mod this down, may I respectfully request you read the proposed legislation... specifically pages 8, 10, bottom of 13 (Arbitration), 24 (Damages!!!), 28 (sec e(1)), 33 (s 301 is actually a good thing when we want it, but a bad thing when the big corporate guys can now nip at each other heels with new standing they don't currently have), p.35 line 22 says the Director can decide whether or not to do a re-examination all on his own, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, we should all wear Guy Fawkes masks. Oh and listen to vinyl records. Yes and think that what'shername with no hair is cute. Oh, no, wait, that was a movie. But what _was_ its name. No worries -- I will go google it right now.
How did this make it onto/.? This isn't news, it's not new, and it's not technically on the cusp of anything except *yawn* sleep.
When you choose to run your photos through facial recognition software (or give them to others who may do the same) you should expect.. ta da.. that they will run them through that software.
The criteria for success includes Facial Identification (figuring out where the face is), Facial Recognition (figuring out if the face matches one on file), and some method of Facial Labeling ("tagging" that face with an identifier).
Calling google "creepy" (pejorative nontechnical evaluation) doesn't give it the credit for doing all three parts correctly. Not liking that google's choice of identifier is more unique than "LAST, FIRST" or "FIRST LAST" is a personal foible, not a problem with the technology.
*LOL* No, YOU need to think. The point of the query is you get good data. If the data that servers transfer in and amongst themselves is corrupt then you CAN'T query to get good data and you CAN'T authenticate it. That's the point. AUTH=Make sure you get your data from the right sources. ENCR=make sure the data are correct.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you can't "verify" DNS by "querying" if the original data are unprotected.
Negative. It makes the transfer of information not be the loose hole in the security pipe. However if either end is compromised, a "secure transfer" of compromised information occurs.
I don't want to bore those who are just here to increase their karma but security of DNS means both security of DATA and security of the TRANSFER of said data. The encludes AUTHENTICATION, ENCRYPTION, and secure endpoints to facilitate both without being compromised.
Securing DNS is a good thing. The methods have been under discussion for years. It is true that if the Internet Engineering Task Force were to actually bless ONE WAY TO DO IT and then REQUIRE THAT METHOD for ALL nameservers (not just the root) then it would be a very good thing.
Sorry but John was obsoelete when the Internet was young. He made his name bumbling about trying to find Tsutomo Shimomura and then when that failed wrote a book about how other people did it.
If you're talking clues about the future of technology or even its current state, John Markoff has nothing to do with it.
There's already an "Internet II" and it has NOTHING to do with limiting content nor authenticating access. Sorry John, another loss.
The Internet will continue to evolve as it always has.
Welcome to the real world, now stop daydreaming and get out of the way
Ehud
Yes, it's always true that if you don't do the full calculation you can do it a lot quicker.
The question becomes if we create a class of processing devices that are guaranteed to be less accurate (or if you like, they will be accurate "to a point") then we need to ensure that those are NEVER EVER used to
a. Create other devices
b. Check the accuracy of other devices
c. Anything other than end-user consumer-grade large-tolerance-allowed use
The question then becomes "How long will it be before someone uses these chips instead of regular chips because they are cheaper and faster..." and our entire technical infrastructure will go to heck.
THIS is the reason why rulers are manufactured to tolerance. YES, they can make a lot more rulers if they don't measure them carefully and don't put all the little lines on them. HOWEVER by ensuring that ALL rulers are accurate, we [as a society] ensure that everything measured with them is accurate, and we can therefore extrapolate yardsticks, house framing, etc.
I'm not on a rant. I understand we can do it faster and cheaper if we lop off a digit or two. I'm just saying if we allow inaccuracy we invite disaster.
There is no bank which will run a system where 1/20 times they will have a 50% chance of losing money.
Remember, it's not about the "probability curve" but rather that there are two sides to every equation. If you, THE USER, are willing to accept the chance of an error in your favor or against you, that doesn't mean THE OTHER SIDE will. Banks have to be accurate.
Let's use another example, that fabled MP3 player where SOMEHOW MAGICALLY the processor knows whether it's being asked to decode an MPEG 1 Layer 3 frame Vs. it's being asked to calculate the next frame to retrieve. (There's no way for it to know.) So let's say that you're willing to accept an erroneous decoding of that frame. Ok. Perhaps the next frame also will be erroneously decoded. After all, it's like dice, EACH roll has that probablistic potential of being wrong.
The artist who recorded the work, the producer who put it on the medium, and the distributor who sold it to you -- all of them DON'T WANT that lack of probablistic potential to degrade their work.
So let's go from the other direction... WHICH APPLICATION wouldn't mind if it randomly did random things. You know, a simple IF-THEN will evaluate wrong, or a simple GOTO will go to somewhere else (or not go to at all) or a WHILE...DO will quit before being done...
I have no idea which application (either software or real life institution) would go for this.
Science is the application of the scientific method.
> I think this could be pretty exciting
Pick up a Magic 8-ball or a pair of dice or do numerology on the next/. post following this one. Those are all equally random, and by your definition, exciting.
Excitement should not come from "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" but rather from something positive. I don't want my planes, trains, automobiles, bank balances, MP3 players, GPS receiver, microwave, timed lights, alarm system, fuel-injection computer, television, DVR, or anything else providing me with extra excitement. I want them all to do EXACTLY what their specs say they will do.
Processors that provide different output for the same input cannot be used for anything that wants predictable output.
They can not be used for ANY result that is later used by anything else -- after all, data based on bad data yields bad results.
Next thing you know, some offshore manufacturer will use the "imprecise" (cheaper) chips instead of the "accurate" ones, and simple things we depend on everyday will fail in wonky ways.
A bit-flip on a microwave will make a 30-second timer not expire at 0, and keep going at 99:99 and burn the food.
A bit-flip on a home heating circuit will make 70F appear to be a target heat of 6F and never turn on.
A bit-flip on an MP3 player would have it skip from 65 seconds into the song to 134 second into the song.
These are all results if just ONE BIT were to flip JUST ONCE. The processor described would UNPREDICTABLY and RANDOMLY do worse than actually flip one bit.
What's next -- they'll put three processors in each device and when two of them agree they'll go for it? "Voting Processing" is bs.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a misleading tag, but I don't blame the OP. This is just the message being put out by the marketing arm of the lobbyists who own the congressmen to whom they gave the "reform" to.
Ehud
P.S. Mods: Before you mod this down, may I respectfully request you read the proposed legislation... specifically pages 8, 10, bottom of 13 (Arbitration), 24 (Damages!!!), 28 (sec e(1)), 33 (s 301 is actually a good thing when we want it, but a bad thing when the big corporate guys can now nip at each other heels with new standing they don't currently have), p.35 line 22 says the Director can decide whether or not to do a re-examination all on his own, etc. etc. etc.
You did.
Ehud
Spoonfeeding is that way --->
E
So far the only one saying "F... the artists and F... their rights is you."
That's one too many.
E
P.S. F... the RIAA.
Ehud
Yes, we should all wear Guy Fawkes masks. Oh and listen to vinyl records. Yes and think that what'shername with no hair is cute. Oh, no, wait, that was a movie. But what _was_ its name. No worries -- I will go google it right now.
When you choose to run your photos through facial recognition software (or give them to others who may do the same) you should expect .. ta da.. that they will run them through that software.
The criteria for success includes Facial Identification (figuring out where the face is), Facial Recognition (figuring out if the face matches one on file), and some method of Facial Labeling ("tagging" that face with an identifier).
Calling google "creepy" (pejorative nontechnical evaluation) doesn't give it the credit for doing all three parts correctly. Not liking that google's choice of identifier is more unique than "LAST, FIRST" or "FIRST LAST" is a personal foible, not a problem with the technology.
Was this a slow "news" day?
E
Your null pointer bitch derefernced[sic] herself and crashed, or I'll take out your fucking lights. How would you like that?
P.S. Google is your friend. Lend your friend money.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you can't "verify" DNS by "querying" if the original data are unprotected.
E
I don't want to bore those who are just here to increase their karma but security of DNS means both security of DATA and security of the TRANSFER of said data. The encludes AUTHENTICATION, ENCRYPTION, and secure endpoints to facilitate both without being compromised.
E
The guy gets it!
E
Why think when you can actually check?
http://tinyurl.com/dg5h7z
See link 1, click once. Read the last two paragraphs. To me that seems like a published position.
Click the "back" button. Read the next few links.
Enjoy.
E
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/31/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights-management-gone-too-far.aspx
E
http://www.google.com/
I think I'll go with what Bruce Schneier and other security researchers suggest.
E
What's the next stupid question which has nothing to do with the topic or the problem?
E
P.S. the solution to email is S/MIME, not some DNS hack. Still, the problem isn't "email" it's windoze.
Sorry but John was obsoelete when the Internet was young. He made his name bumbling about trying to find Tsutomo Shimomura and then when that failed wrote a book about how other people did it. If you're talking clues about the future of technology or even its current state, John Markoff has nothing to do with it. There's already an "Internet II" and it has NOTHING to do with limiting content nor authenticating access. Sorry John, another loss. The Internet will continue to evolve as it always has. Welcome to the real world, now stop daydreaming and get out of the way Ehud
The question becomes if we create a class of processing devices that are guaranteed to be less accurate (or if you like, they will be accurate "to a point") then we need to ensure that those are NEVER EVER used to
a. Create other devices
b. Check the accuracy of other devices
c. Anything other than end-user consumer-grade large-tolerance-allowed use
The question then becomes "How long will it be before someone uses these chips instead of regular chips because they are cheaper and faster..." and our entire technical infrastructure will go to heck.
THIS is the reason why rulers are manufactured to tolerance. YES, they can make a lot more rulers if they don't measure them carefully and don't put all the little lines on them. HOWEVER by ensuring that ALL rulers are accurate, we [as a society] ensure that everything measured with them is accurate, and we can therefore extrapolate yardsticks, house framing, etc.
I'm not on a rant. I understand we can do it faster and cheaper if we lop off a digit or two. I'm just saying if we allow inaccuracy we invite disaster.
E
Remember, it's not about the "probability curve" but rather that there are two sides to every equation. If you, THE USER, are willing to accept the chance of an error in your favor or against you, that doesn't mean THE OTHER SIDE will. Banks have to be accurate.
Let's use another example, that fabled MP3 player where SOMEHOW MAGICALLY the processor knows whether it's being asked to decode an MPEG 1 Layer 3 frame Vs. it's being asked to calculate the next frame to retrieve. (There's no way for it to know.) So let's say that you're willing to accept an erroneous decoding of that frame. Ok. Perhaps the next frame also will be erroneously decoded. After all, it's like dice, EACH roll has that probablistic potential of being wrong.
The artist who recorded the work, the producer who put it on the medium, and the distributor who sold it to you -- all of them DON'T WANT that lack of probablistic potential to degrade their work.
So let's go from the other direction... WHICH APPLICATION wouldn't mind if it randomly did random things. You know, a simple IF-THEN will evaluate wrong, or a simple GOTO will go to somewhere else (or not go to at all) or a WHILE...DO will quit before being done...
I have no idea which application (either software or real life institution) would go for this.
E
Science is the application of the scientific method.
> I think this could be pretty exciting
Pick up a Magic 8-ball or a pair of dice or do numerology on the next /. post following this one. Those are all equally random, and by your definition, exciting.
Excitement should not come from "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" but rather from something positive. I don't want my planes, trains, automobiles, bank balances, MP3 players, GPS receiver, microwave, timed lights, alarm system, fuel-injection computer, television, DVR, or anything else providing me with extra excitement. I want them all to do EXACTLY what their specs say they will do.
E
They can not be used for ANY result that is later used by anything else -- after all, data based on bad data yields bad results.
Next thing you know, some offshore manufacturer will use the "imprecise" (cheaper) chips instead of the "accurate" ones, and simple things we depend on everyday will fail in wonky ways.
A bit-flip on a microwave will make a 30-second timer not expire at 0, and keep going at 99:99 and burn the food.
A bit-flip on a home heating circuit will make 70F appear to be a target heat of 6F and never turn on.
A bit-flip on an MP3 player would have it skip from 65 seconds into the song to 134 second into the song.
These are all results if just ONE BIT were to flip JUST ONCE. The processor described would UNPREDICTABLY and RANDOMLY do worse than actually flip one bit.
What's next -- they'll put three processors in each device and when two of them agree they'll go for it? "Voting Processing" is bs.
E
TROLL.
Mods: Please mod the parent TROLL. IT contributes nothing to the discussion, is irrelevant, divisive, and makes no sense.
Ehud
Yes.
> your google results confirms what i[sic] said
No, they show that there's nothing there about "170 vac rms" or anything else you said.
> So, thanks?
You're welcome
> for backing me up i[sic] guess.
Your guess is wrong.
Ehud