From an anatomical oddity POV, "missing a leg" is different from "leg".
It shows what Watson does is still at a search engine level.
Contrast with Jennings' incorrect answer: "missing a hand".
Both don't know the answer and are guessing, but they are guessing at different levels.
I suspect in most cases Watson doesn't know the answer and is guessing - it has a lot of raw data and is very very good at sorting and filtering. But it does not have a very good model of the world that the Jeopardy game is about.
Clue: It was this anatomical oddity of US gymnast George Eyser. Ken Jennings' answer: Missing a hand (wrong) Watson's answer: leg (wrong) Correct answer: Missing a leg
Uh so 100 people buying 100 frames means those people combined get 100% of the profits?
Of course if they use Hollywood accounting the movie never makes any profit, so they can promise to give out 135000% of the profits but never actually have to pay out anything.
Go ahead, send your orders as fast as you want. But being able to see other people's orders AND cancel your orders accordingly before the rest of the market gets them is cheating.
But it doesn't matter. It only takes one CA in your browser/OS's huge list of CAs to sign a cert that's used to MITM you.
None of the popular browsers will give you a warning if the CA changes. For example if you went to China and went to your bank, if CNNIC (one of China's CAs) signs a cert that claims to be your bank, and used that to re-sign your intercepted HTTPS connections, your browser will not warn you. Your traffic would be visible to them without any warnings.
Unless of course you use something like the certificate patrol plug-in.
Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism. Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
Search for malamanteau and block the spam sites that popup.
Then go to: http://www.google.com/trends Search for a combination of a few of the top hits that should be very unlikely to appear together in a site most people would be interested in. For instance search for: "irina shayk" "cta bus tracker" "bleach episode 309". Then block the obvious spammers.
As long as I can see the answers it doesn't matter to me.
What I'm going to do is search for "malamanteau". And start blocking the spam sites that show up.
A fair number of them use the same phrases. For example: "if youâ€(TM)ve heard malamanteau as the word of the day". Even if some of them are innocent they sure don't look like they'd ever have any content that isn't already elsewhere and in better form/context.
Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
And I believe they smacked BMW Germany for that.
However pay-wall sites (like elsevier) appear to present different content to Google from what nonsubscribers can see. And they've been doing it for years.
Compare what you see in the search results to what a nonsubscriber can actually see. Yes many Google users might be subscribers, but far many more aren't.
NOTE: yes I have site:elsevier.com there, but for many similar searches minus the site:elsevier.com term, Google often shows up lots of elsevier links that nonsubscribers would NOT be able to read. e.g. cancer +"lower percentage" nasopharyngeal or: carcinoma cervix +"lower percentage"
To me BMW Germany's "doorway pages" would have been less of a problem. Apparently their site had doorway pages with lots of stupid crap like "used car" (in German) repeated.
How much problems would that cause for Google's users? At least those who weren't interested in BMW's site in the first place.
It is actually not too difficult to pick a Nokia phone on some of their websites (they have a phone chooser applet - either you or the salesperson can click on the stuff you want). For some countries though - prices aren't listed. That makes their phone choosing webapp a lot less useful to me.
I disagree with Steve Jobs' implication that a reduction of choice is a good thing. Just because Steve Jobs thinks it's crap doesn't mean the rest of the world won't want to buy it.
If you want a cheap durable phone just for calls, SMS, with a decent battery life and not too stupid a UI, Nokia has phones like that.
My dad is very happy with his Nokia phone that cost less than many iphone cases (and the sales guy even insisted on throwing in a free phone case;) ).
If Nokia tries to be an Apple they may find the seat has already been taken.
And if one particular Linux distro somehow becomes very popular, the attacker can just target it.
I doubt attackers are interested in the tiny numbers of people who "compile their own linux kernels" but are still too stupid to realize what the real problem is.
AFAIK if you download that mach-o file from a website the resulting downloaded file will not be set to executable automatically, and the "victim" cannot run it.
The victim will have to do the equivalent of chmod +x on it first.
On the other hand if you create an appropriate disk image file and set the mimetype to application/x-apple-diskimage OSX will mount the disk automatically. And if you put the right things in that disk image (like a package), OSX will start the OSX "Installer" to install it.
Depending on the situation or what the user does it may even run some "preinstall" or "installation check" scripts you supply with that package.
Perhaps Microsoft may start sandboxing more of their stuff too.
IMO Windows and Linux are about the same from an IT security POV.
By default if you can get a user to run something, all their data can be pwned, and you can also have malware running with the user's full privileges. Things don't have to be like this.
I personally think that most "active-active" firewall scenarios cause more problems than they solve;).
Whether it's Cisco, Juniper or Checkpoint, it's usually less reliable.
With a hot standby you just have to cut-over _once_ when stuff fails. With active-active, your cut-overs in effect happen regularly. And for most implementations, if you understand the details you'd know it's not such a great thing. Speaking of details go look up how Juniper does active-active - for "real" active-active you need the clients to have two default routes;).
If you have just two active-active firewalls, what happens if you are running both at 75% and one fails? You'd then have to drop traffic right? So that breaks any requirement that "no users notice".
And if you have many active-active firewalls, just imagine how much state they'd have to exchange amongst each other.
Seems to me "active-active" firewalls are mainly to satisfy PHBs who want all their expensive firewalls to be "working" at the same time;). They probably don't understand that firemen are still working when they're "just waiting" for the call.
As for Cisco, years ago their switches caused problems with an active-active checkpoint firewall configuration. Everything in theory should have worked. In practice it didn't. Spent hours trying to figure it out - configuring the checkpoint, sniffing the traffic etc, looking at the switches etc.
In the end we got desperate and requested that the core cisco switches be rebooted. And after that it worked! No changes to anything - cisco and firewall configs still the same (saved too).
Even is the attacker has root on the web application box
The web application receives the password that each user types.
So if the attacker is able to replace or tamper with the web application the attacker can get those passwords too.
In some systems getting root doesn't mean you can do that, but most people don't use such systems since they tend to be too inconvenient for getting things done quickly;).
You can react faster than kinect - just watch the video and move your hand up/down when the person in the video does it. You can do it before Kinect does.
If you were playing an FPS using a kinect against someone who was using a low lag controller, many times you would already be "dead" before kinect recognized your action.
As for work, whenever possible, it's the humans that should be making stuff wait, not the computers/controllers/UI;).
From an engineering perspective (at least for the old IBM ones) they're OK.
But they'd look rather out of place next to a designer handbag, or in one of those "interior designer" apartments/houses. Whereas a Mac might not. My self-assembled PC would certainly stick out like a sore thumb in those environments:).
Returning to the topic of Microsoft , watch this video to see one of the differences between Microsoft and Apple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0 So what's wrong with that final box? It works doesn't it? As you can see it's a matter of taste:).
Apparently the video was done by Microsoft employees. So perhaps it's not just the engineers who aren't being heard by management - their own designers might be getting overridden for "business reasons".
Slashdot Mirror
From an anatomical oddity POV, "missing a leg" is different from "leg".
It shows what Watson does is still at a search engine level.
Contrast with Jennings' incorrect answer: "missing a hand".
Both don't know the answer and are guessing, but they are guessing at different levels.
I suspect in most cases Watson doesn't know the answer and is guessing - it has a lot of raw data and is very very good at sorting and filtering. But it does not have a very good model of the world that the Jeopardy game is about.
The other thing Watson showed by its mistakes is that its AI still lacks understanding and intelligence.
Often it's your wrong answers that show how much you really understand.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0215/On-Jeopardy-Watson-s-mistakes-reveal-its-genius
Clue: It was this anatomical oddity of US gymnast George Eyser.
Ken Jennings' answer: Missing a hand (wrong)
Watson's answer: leg (wrong)
Correct answer: Missing a leg
And the "Toronto":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/watson-computer-makes-elementary-error-on-jeopardy/article1909685/?cmpid=rss1
Once the AI's wrong answers start to look intelligent, the next level of understanding would be when the AI can actually teach someone what it knows.
If you can teach difficult new stuff to stupider people then you're getting to Feynmann material :).
Uh so 100 people buying 100 frames means those people combined get 100% of the profits?
Of course if they use Hollywood accounting the movie never makes any profit, so they can promise to give out 135000% of the profits but never actually have to pay out anything.
I don't even mind high frequency trading. What I mind is them getting to see stuff before others and act on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/business/05flash.html
Go ahead, send your orders as fast as you want. But being able to see other people's orders AND cancel your orders accordingly before the rest of the market gets them is cheating.
Then they'll just preload you into jails because of your precrime with preadults :).
After you prepay for that privilege of course.
Verisign is one of the few CAs that _has_ given out bad certs.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms01-017.mspx
But it doesn't matter. It only takes one CA in your browser/OS's huge list of CAs to sign a cert that's used to MITM you.
None of the popular browsers will give you a warning if the CA changes. For example if you went to China and went to your bank, if CNNIC (one of China's CAs) signs a cert that claims to be your bank, and used that to re-sign your intercepted HTTPS connections, your browser will not warn you. Your traffic would be visible to them without any warnings.
Unless of course you use something like the certificate patrol plug-in.
Hamas doesn't want peace with Israel in the long term:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
The only peace they want is one where Israel is wiped out.
Fatah's old charter also stated similar stuff: http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598&a=97061
Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism.
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
Apparently their new one no longer calls for Israel's destruction. http://jta.org/news/article/2010/01/27/1010372/new-fatah-charter-omits-negationist-language
But there will be problems as long as most of them continue to hold on to the popular "radical/extremist Islam" concepts listed here: http://www.tawfikhamid.com/abcs-test-for-radical-islam/
Here's what I'm doing to identify the spammers:
Search for malamanteau and block the spam sites that popup.
Then go to: http://www.google.com/trends
Search for a combination of a few of the top hits that should be very unlikely to appear together in a site most people would be interested in. For instance search for: "irina shayk" "cta bus tracker" "bleach episode 309". Then block the obvious spammers.
Oops it should be ""if you've heard malamanteau as the word of the day".
Somehow the quote got mangled.
As long as I can see the answers it doesn't matter to me.
What I'm going to do is search for "malamanteau". And start blocking the spam sites that show up.
A fair number of them use the same phrases. For example: "if youâ€(TM)ve heard malamanteau as the word of the day". Even if some of them are innocent they sure don't look like they'd ever have any content that isn't already elsewhere and in better form/context.
Is it a lens flare? It looks like a sensor overload.
I'm missing something too - why couldn't the Saudi women just create their own group?
Are Saudi women are prohibited by their religion/laws from creating FB groups?
The guidelines say:
Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
And I believe they smacked BMW Germany for that.
However pay-wall sites (like elsevier) appear to present different content to Google from what nonsubscribers can see. And they've been doing it for years.
For example, do a google search for: site:elsevier.com cancer +"lower percentage"
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aelsevier.com+cancer+%2B"lower+percentage"
Compare what you see in the search results to what a nonsubscriber can actually see. Yes many Google users might be subscribers, but far many more aren't.
NOTE: yes I have site:elsevier.com there, but for many similar searches minus the site:elsevier.com term, Google often shows up lots of elsevier links that nonsubscribers would NOT be able to read. e.g. cancer +"lower percentage" nasopharyngeal
or: carcinoma cervix +"lower percentage"
To me BMW Germany's "doorway pages" would have been less of a problem. Apparently their site had doorway pages with lots of stupid crap like "used car" (in German) repeated.
How much problems would that cause for Google's users? At least those who weren't interested in BMW's site in the first place.
It is actually not too difficult to pick a Nokia phone on some of their websites (they have a phone chooser applet - either you or the salesperson can click on the stuff you want). For some countries though - prices aren't listed. That makes their phone choosing webapp a lot less useful to me.
;) ).
I disagree with Steve Jobs' implication that a reduction of choice is a good thing. Just because Steve Jobs thinks it's crap doesn't mean the rest of the world won't want to buy it.
If you want a cheap durable phone just for calls, SMS, with a decent battery life and not too stupid a UI, Nokia has phones like that.
My dad is very happy with his Nokia phone that cost less than many iphone cases (and the sales guy even insisted on throwing in a free phone case
If Nokia tries to be an Apple they may find the seat has already been taken.
That one was actually true in a way.
If Nokia's R&D plans have nothing better than Android then using Android would be better. But that wouldn't say good things about Nokia.
Imagine if Steve Jobs said that the next iPhone would use Android.
Nokia's switch to "Windows Mobile" on the other hand looks like Microsoft peeing in Nokia's pants for warmth in winter.
Yeah, the Installer is part of OSX.
The preinstall scripts are not, but supposedly they are sandboxed (or ignored nowadays?).
It's still easier to get a "normal user" to keep clicking next than to get them to chmod the right file and run it.
And if one particular Linux distro somehow becomes very popular, the attacker can just target it.
I doubt attackers are interested in the tiny numbers of people who "compile their own linux kernels" but are still too stupid to realize what the real problem is.
AFAIK if you download that mach-o file from a website the resulting downloaded file will not be set to executable automatically, and the "victim" cannot run it.
The victim will have to do the equivalent of chmod +x on it first.
On the other hand if you create an appropriate disk image file and set the mimetype to application/x-apple-diskimage OSX will mount the disk automatically. And if you put the right things in that disk image (like a package), OSX will start the OSX "Installer" to install it.
Depending on the situation or what the user does it may even run some "preinstall" or "installation check" scripts you supply with that package.
That thumbnail stuff sounds similar to the windows "shortcut icon" vulnerability: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS10-046.mspx
Perhaps Microsoft may start sandboxing more of their stuff too.
IMO Windows and Linux are about the same from an IT security POV.
By default if you can get a user to run something, all their data can be pwned, and you can also have malware running with the user's full privileges. Things don't have to be like this.
I meant she should label the Petri dishes, but I spoke too quickly. I reread it and she mixed up both cells in the same Petri dish.
Of course she did that. It's quite hard for white blood cells to fight each other if you put each of them in their own petri dish.
White blood cells generally are unable to use ranged weapons to their full effectiveness.
Yeah and when there's only one immortal white blood cell left standing, it's impossible to chop its head off ;).
I personally think that most "active-active" firewall scenarios cause more problems than they solve ;).
;).
;). They probably don't understand that firemen are still working when they're "just waiting" for the call.
Whether it's Cisco, Juniper or Checkpoint, it's usually less reliable.
With a hot standby you just have to cut-over _once_ when stuff fails. With active-active, your cut-overs in effect happen regularly. And for most implementations, if you understand the details you'd know it's not such a great thing. Speaking of details go look up how Juniper does active-active - for "real" active-active you need the clients to have two default routes
If you have just two active-active firewalls, what happens if you are running both at 75% and one fails? You'd then have to drop traffic right? So that breaks any requirement that "no users notice".
And if you have many active-active firewalls, just imagine how much state they'd have to exchange amongst each other.
Seems to me "active-active" firewalls are mainly to satisfy PHBs who want all their expensive firewalls to be "working" at the same time
As for Cisco, years ago their switches caused problems with an active-active checkpoint firewall configuration. Everything in theory should have worked. In practice it didn't. Spent hours trying to figure it out - configuring the checkpoint, sniffing the traffic etc, looking at the switches etc.
In the end we got desperate and requested that the core cisco switches be rebooted. And after that it worked! No changes to anything - cisco and firewall configs still the same (saved too).
Even is the attacker has root on the web application box
The web application receives the password that each user types.
So if the attacker is able to replace or tamper with the web application the attacker can get those passwords too.
In some systems getting root doesn't mean you can do that, but most people don't use such systems since they tend to be too inconvenient for getting things done quickly ;).
Kinect adds a lag of about 200-250 milliseconds:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/4057
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF9b5UiVq-Q
That's fine for casual use, crap for the pros.
You can react faster than kinect - just watch the video and move your hand up/down when the person in the video does it. You can do it before Kinect does.
If you were playing an FPS using a kinect against someone who was using a low lag controller, many times you would already be "dead" before kinect recognized your action.
As for work, whenever possible, it's the humans that should be making stuff wait, not the computers/controllers/UI ;).
From an engineering perspective (at least for the old IBM ones) they're OK.
But they'd look rather out of place next to a designer handbag, or in one of those "interior designer" apartments/houses. Whereas a Mac might not. My self-assembled PC would certainly stick out like a sore thumb in those environments :).
Returning to the topic of Microsoft , watch this video to see one of the differences between Microsoft and Apple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0 :).
So what's wrong with that final box? It works doesn't it? As you can see it's a matter of taste
Apparently the video was done by Microsoft employees. So perhaps it's not just the engineers who aren't being heard by management - their own designers might be getting overridden for "business reasons".