Mozilla isn't where yet, exactly? I find Mozilla to be more capable than IE often times. My current project at work has an extensive CGI front end so I'm having to deal with all the cross-browser issues. Writing standard-compliant HTML/CSS works beautiful in Mozilla, have not had one problem yet.
What was the last version of Mozilla you used?
I thought the whole AP article was absolute drivel. It did not convey any clear story what so ever, and was slightly misinformed.
I would have liked to have seen, "Dmitry is currently staying in San Mateo with his wife and kids, on condition of his release on bail forbidding him to return to russia."
At least they didn't advertise him as a l33t h4x0r
The article states Dmitry lives in San Mateo with his wife and 2 kids. Did that change since the trial and he decided that he really did like the good ol' USA?
At least they put on that Defcon was about hacking, you wouldn't want people to actually know it is a security conference that a lot of legitimate people speak and learn at.
The DMCA still will be tried, and may or may not withstand judgement. However, no single person is getting the shaft from the long arm of the law which will help make this much easier on everyone involved on the defensive end.
Let him testify, my guess is his testimonial will serve ElcomSoft better in defense.
My girlfriend introduced me to this guy, who everyone refers to as 'Jedi' at the local pool hall. He was your typical programmer-looking fellow with thick glasses. After we met, she told me about how he used to be fully blind from an accident and went to europe to get experimental surgery and is now able to see perfectly fine with the aid of glasses.
I know of quite a few stories about people in areas outside of the united states received advanced medical treatment; this is the first I actually know personally.
The really amazing thing about Jedi is that he could actually shoot a very good game of pool while blind. He would have his friend use a cue tapper and tap on the X/Y axis of the table to tell him where the object balls were at. I met him after he got his sight, but none-the-less an impressive feat.
I would recommend to anyone interested in alternate surgies than what america has to offer to check into the european medical field and you may be surprised. I wish I had more information about him, if anyone is interested in any further information post in my journal and I'll get a hold of him.
Wrong. Independance was also wrong with their pencil invoice.
The way many government invoices are totalled is you have a list of supplies and a total cost of budget. So you have a $25,000 pencil on the invoice and you also have a $25,000 32-cpu 10GB ram box there.
Granted, it's stupid and most invoices aren't like this a lot of them are. All the hype about projects having "hidden overhead" is typically bunk.
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No.
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
Simple, it's called time.
Getting off work at 5:15, a 30 minute train ride, and walking a mile to get there in under 15 minutes (excluding train delays which are often) so I can be there when class starts at 6 would be exceptionally difficult.
Traveling at an average speed of 8mph would drastically improve my chances of getting there on time.
Re:How come you don't have a bike?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
Absolutely, you try sticking a bike in a crowded office building that has a small bike rack that is usually not only full but in a stupid location, find a good place at a kung fu school, and carrying a bike on a light rail during rush hour is just idiotic. Carrying something that can double for a place to put your bag an takes up little room is much more reasonable.
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No.
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I read your thread, and as everyone else is pointing out it really is absolute drivel.
I live about 25 miles away from my work, not a bad deal because I take the local light rail in. Problem is the nearest stop is a little under a mile away. So, often times I drive my car there and park and ride. Switching to Segway for this would be awesome. Gas costs alone over the course of three years for my vehicle would overcome the expenses of buying a Segway.
Also, 3 nights a week I go to kung fu. The school is about a mile away from a different light rail stop - and for effiency and time sake i have to drive an additional 3 miles to go to a light rail stop past the traffic congestion so I can make it to kung fu on time. Now, I take my time hit in the morning when often times it will take me about 30 minutes to go 3 miles - that isn't good gas mileage. Having a segway would enable me to ride to the close light rail stop, take it to work, take the light rail after work to the stop near my kung fu school ride there and back, then back home. Easy, efficient, and very practical considering I never carry anything more than my laptop bag/backpack combo.
I know I'm not the only one who has transportation patterns similar; in fact 2 other people I work with are very excited about it for nearly the same reasons. The rest of your arguments (in this parent and your other) are just idiotic and irrational. Many people would like this. I'll probably be buying one when they come available - another perk is I don't have to leave my car at the light rail stop where it can be broken into or damaged.
That sounds like a last gasp of the desperate silliness of the late 90's. All anyone has to do is come up with a great internet idea and venture caps will lavish money on you, whilst your IPO soars to the stratosphere
Every example I know of and gave was of people who established their wealth before 1990. Real life is like that. For every failed dream, I'd say a good 1 out of 10 was "bad luck" every other was because of that person. It is not hard to get wealthy. I'll say it again, and I mean it. Getting wealthy requires only three things: Ambition, Knowledge, and Intuition.
Any body who has a failed dream has no one to blame but themselves. If you don't believe wealth is easy to obtain you don't deserve it; and you wont receive it. Simple as that.
As it is now, it is already difficult enough to transcend one's class.
Sorry, but no. Look at the top 10 richest people in America and see how many of them transcended class. Granted, it went from middle to upper in most cases, but there are many wealthy people who grew up poor. I work with someone whose father in law was poor as dirt, and is now a multimillionaire - stories along those lines are not uncommon.
Most wealthy people are more intelligent than the average folk, because if you have the desire to become wealthy it wont mean dick if you don't have the intelligence. It's hard making the first million, each additional after that is easy. (With the exception of the IPO boom)
I knew someone who was worth on paper over a million, and because he was so thickly stupid became worth 2% of that in the course of six months. Don't criticize people who work hard to get what they have; it's childish. If genetic modifications for their children costs money, it's just another reward for them beating the system. For those who were born into wealth; so be it. For those born into poverty; get wealthy. It isn't hard. There are so many ways in which a dirt-poor person can 'beat the system' and come out on top. I know way too many people who have done that to not believe it. Fairy tales do come true; but you have to make them so.
How can you steal something that was given to you? Even if they didn't mean to give it to you, they still gave it to you. Intention does not change factual events.
Many spams don't tie any commercial interest to the recipient. A letter saying "buy our product" does not tie any commercial interest to the reader. It only delivers the old "give us money" message.
Delivering a direct "give us money" message is not a direct commercial interest? Strange understanding.
but, and that's the important part, don't you think that the webmaster would be capable of figuring that out herself?
Way too many people are just plain stupid, or don't know what they can or cannot do with any scope of technology. I view any correspondance that is purely information (as this was, 100% informational) to not be an unwelcome, time consuming, annoying piece of spam. I consider it to be an unwelcome reminder that most the population that has webservers don't understand a lot of the services available to them.
Gladly, now that you have acknowledged that is what has happened.
First off, lets relate directly to the spam definition you posted. First off, Google may (under the assumption it is Google) be sending these out, however it is far from a flood. Given that robots.txt are not a common place occurance on sites and from the email correlates emails to the different sites it blocks. Secondly, there is no counts or reports that this is a multiple-email therefor requiring no one any action to cease the receipt of the email.
Following the guidelines from spam.abuse.net (What is Spam?) this email really doesn't satisfy any of the direct arguments. I would say it is an annoying notification, similar to if you install Windows (My girlfriend got a new laptop with XP, let me tell you it is irritating) and it prompts you for updates and such. This is prompting you with information once. It's not a deluge that will cost anyone any amount of money (unless you are on a metered line with a 300bps modem) If you read the full What is Spam article, I think you will see that sending one email per server-admin while it correlates the email addresses to prevent the same email address getting blasted by 20 emails (in which case I would say you have a much stronger argument it is spam).
The commercial interest of it in no way ties to the recipient of the email, and in no way is their organization structured on the email. Yes, it may help get more sites indexed; but it is a far cry from email marketing. Calling any unsolicted email (which I back it is) spam is dangerous, because think of it this way: everytime you send a resume with an email to a company just to see if they have openings is the same course - yet not spam, right?
You are completly ommitting the "Add User-Agent: Googlebot" section, and claim they are tryin to get them "remove robots.txt" as you said they said.
Yes, the intent is to be able to index more pages.
Yes, Google has a commercial interest in indexing more pages.
No, it is not a commercial unsolicited message because the commercial link is not a direct relation.
Seriously, though, for unasked-for email, this example is relatively benign. Above all else, I find it odd and wonder whether I'll receive it soon enough. Why wouldn't Google just add more prominent notice of their own (existing) information regarding robots.txt to their site instead of undertaking an email campaign? Very odd and wasteful.
I dunno, I view these kind of emails like the DMV notices or USPS notices that get mailed out. Benign, pointful (usually) and 99.9% of the time wasteful. However, in the electronic frontier it is caused by marketing dorks. As is most the problems in the electronic space.
First point: it isn't bulk. Therefor, a count against it being spam.
Second point: They never ask you to remove it, they suggest if you want to let google search, add User-Agent: Googlebot. Big difference.
Third point: SPAM is SPAM. Google sending one email to a site is not. It isn't a commercial email, even though by getting more traffic to their site and happier customers generate email. It would be spam if they advertised anywhere in there that you can be listed as a sponsored link for the low low cost of $4.95 for the first hit $0.99 each additional. It wasn't.
It was unsolicted email, yes. It is not bulk, nor commercial. There for it is only 33.3% spam.
...to get people to remove the robots.txt file from their sites...
Bullshit you read it. The purpose of the email is to add a User-Agent: Googlebot to the robots.txt. Course you knew that didnt you? Be specific, otherwise you lie.
I think that you misunderstood the purpose of the email. They do acknowledge and recognize that you setup the robots.txt - but offer a suggestion to allow google to index your site and no other bots (Unless their bots lie and say they are google)
I think it's perfectly clear in there, the line that states if it is your intention, ignore the rest of the email. I can understand your stance, but I hope you take into account that this was simply an informational email - and my guess is a lot of people don't know you can setup a robots.txt entry to allow one crawler but block others.
They still advocate and encourage robots.txt, and I personally find their email handy, well-worded, and non-intrusive. If they change their policy and start emailing them to you on a regular basis, let us know because then it's violating your personal space and I back your stance 100%. Till then, one email doesn't hurt - and it does provide useful information as well as acknowledging (not begging at all) that you may be perfectly content blocking the crawler bots.
Well, why don't you start out by writing a decent initial layer. And, you wouldn't want to use a regex because of computational overhead that is unnecessary for a fixed-length comparison as you put it. If you understood the obvious problems with your initial filter you might be qualified to teach CS on slashdot. Although, I really would like to see you run a query like that as your primary 'non-expensive' regex... it'd be a good laugh when you could do the same test in 2 lines of code that requires about half the overhead. Hell, with the overhead you save you could do a full mod10 check too - and actually get valid results. You wouldn't throw out 99% of the invalid pages too because your regex wasn't encapsulating only 16 objects - not even bounded so any page that had any number of sequential numbers would be passed to the second layer. That's fine and dandy but why not just do a comparison check that verifies it's a mod10 number in the first go? Oh right, because you are so l33t you don't need to worry about algorithm efficiency and overhead... my bad.
Posting code on slashdot does this, especially when you follow it up with a claim that you are some cool guy who understands all these principles of CS when it ends up you really have no clue how to design a high-load low-overhead algorithm to filter based on a relative scoring algorithm (in this case, it's a mod10 16-digit number scored at either 100% or 0% in the initial algorithm thereby ommitting any necessity for a pipe) the expiration date can also be computed after a CC number is found and inserted into an index query (passed two a second layer) and then using a lune check to calculate the proper pairing (with a score index based off of page/domain to filter the CC's to check against)
But hey.. you knew that right? This isn't coding, it's science. Big difference, go back to school.
Only if you made sense. Your regex was absolute drivel and didn't address any problem, nor would it work correctly because my guess you have no idea how credit card numbers are generated. They are mod10 numbers that have an algorithm based upon the expiration date (called the Lune Check, go google if curious) so if you have the expiration date (any 4 number string broken up in numerous different ways) and a 16 digit number you can match them up -- also anyone searching for credit card numbers with your regex is absolutely stupid and destined for failure.
The point wasn't lost on us, it was just simply a silly and overly pointless response. Links that contain passwords are a bad idea, but most "real" sites that offer password protection with session authentication don't have problems like sessions laying around for hijacking.
Also, a search engine that crawls upon link that contains password information would initiate a login/session pair on that site (given it is a session-based site) or just a persistent login (which is a bad idea anyway)
Feel free to get pissy; you are still wrong. And if that regex is a real demonstration of your coding abilities, you are way out of your league but I wont make a judgement about that - just a statement from a developer (who, incidently is writing a credit card processing engine at the moment) who knows the workings of credit card algorithms. And, on an unrelated side note just to vent: veriphone sucks.
That wont match anything useful, maybe I'm just missing something but it looks... pointless.
That would match this hex string:
3c5e2a992b3c2a151...(dont feel like finishing typing it out)
and a plethora of other valid data. The reason why this algorithm is ugly is because all numbers that are mod10 are not credit card numbers.
What does your hint mean anyway? What does that have to do with anything? Expiring sessions that remove themselves when they timeout wont matter (which is relatively easy, you just have a scrub process stat the session lock and purge session if access time is > timeout time.)
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla isn't where yet, exactly? I find Mozilla to be more capable than IE often times. My current project at work has an extensive CGI front end so I'm having to deal with all the cross-browser issues. Writing standard-compliant HTML/CSS works beautiful in Mozilla, have not had one problem yet.
What was the last version of Mozilla you used?
I thought the whole AP article was absolute drivel. It did not convey any clear story what so ever, and was slightly misinformed.
I would have liked to have seen, "Dmitry is currently staying in San Mateo with his wife and kids, on condition of his release on bail forbidding him to return to russia."
At least they didn't advertise him as a l33t h4x0r
The article states Dmitry lives in San Mateo with his wife and 2 kids. Did that change since the trial and he decided that he really did like the good ol' USA?
/. reviewing of facts was bad.. geez.
At least they put on that Defcon was about hacking, you wouldn't want people to actually know it is a security conference that a lot of legitimate people speak and learn at.
I thought
The DMCA still will be tried, and may or may not withstand judgement. However, no single person is getting the shaft from the long arm of the law which will help make this much easier on everyone involved on the defensive end.
...
Let him testify, my guess is his testimonial will serve ElcomSoft better in defense.
... So, if he weighs the same as a duck
[ unattractivegeek@localhost ]$ locate .mpg
sex-001.mpg
sex-002.mpg
...
My girlfriend introduced me to this guy, who everyone refers to as 'Jedi' at the local pool hall. He was your typical programmer-looking fellow with thick glasses. After we met, she told me about how he used to be fully blind from an accident and went to europe to get experimental surgery and is now able to see perfectly fine with the aid of glasses.
I know of quite a few stories about people in areas outside of the united states received advanced medical treatment; this is the first I actually know personally.
The really amazing thing about Jedi is that he could actually shoot a very good game of pool while blind. He would have his friend use a cue tapper and tap on the X/Y axis of the table to tell him where the object balls were at. I met him after he got his sight, but none-the-less an impressive feat.
I would recommend to anyone interested in alternate surgies than what america has to offer to check into the european medical field and you may be surprised. I wish I had more information about him, if anyone is interested in any further information post in my journal and I'll get a hold of him.
Wrong. Independance was also wrong with their pencil invoice.
The way many government invoices are totalled is you have a list of supplies and a total cost of budget. So you have a $25,000 pencil on the invoice and you also have a $25,000 32-cpu 10GB ram box there.
Granted, it's stupid and most invoices aren't like this a lot of them are. All the hype about projects having "hidden overhead" is typically bunk.
Simple, it's called time.
Getting off work at 5:15, a 30 minute train ride, and walking a mile to get there in under 15 minutes (excluding train delays which are often) so I can be there when class starts at 6 would be exceptionally difficult.
Traveling at an average speed of 8mph would drastically improve my chances of getting there on time.
Absolutely, you try sticking a bike in a crowded office building that has a small bike rack that is usually not only full but in a stupid location, find a good place at a kung fu school, and carrying a bike on a light rail during rush hour is just idiotic. Carrying something that can double for a place to put your bag an takes up little room is much more reasonable.
I read your thread, and as everyone else is pointing out it really is absolute drivel.
I live about 25 miles away from my work, not a bad deal because I take the local light rail in. Problem is the nearest stop is a little under a mile away. So, often times I drive my car there and park and ride. Switching to Segway for this would be awesome. Gas costs alone over the course of three years for my vehicle would overcome the expenses of buying a Segway.
Also, 3 nights a week I go to kung fu. The school is about a mile away from a different light rail stop - and for effiency and time sake i have to drive an additional 3 miles to go to a light rail stop past the traffic congestion so I can make it to kung fu on time. Now, I take my time hit in the morning when often times it will take me about 30 minutes to go 3 miles - that isn't good gas mileage. Having a segway would enable me to ride to the close light rail stop, take it to work, take the light rail after work to the stop near my kung fu school ride there and back, then back home. Easy, efficient, and very practical considering I never carry anything more than my laptop bag/backpack combo.
I know I'm not the only one who has transportation patterns similar; in fact 2 other people I work with are very excited about it for nearly the same reasons. The rest of your arguments (in this parent and your other) are just idiotic and irrational. Many people would like this. I'll probably be buying one when they come available - another perk is I don't have to leave my car at the light rail stop where it can be broken into or damaged.
That sounds like a last gasp of the desperate silliness of the late 90's. All anyone has to do is come up with a great internet idea and venture caps will lavish money on you, whilst your IPO soars to the stratosphere
Every example I know of and gave was of people who established their wealth before 1990. Real life is like that. For every failed dream, I'd say a good 1 out of 10 was "bad luck" every other was because of that person. It is not hard to get wealthy. I'll say it again, and I mean it. Getting wealthy requires only three things: Ambition, Knowledge, and Intuition.
Any body who has a failed dream has no one to blame but themselves. If you don't believe wealth is easy to obtain you don't deserve it; and you wont receive it. Simple as that.
As it is now, it is already difficult enough to transcend one's class.
Sorry, but no. Look at the top 10 richest people in America and see how many of them transcended class. Granted, it went from middle to upper in most cases, but there are many wealthy people who grew up poor. I work with someone whose father in law was poor as dirt, and is now a multimillionaire - stories along those lines are not uncommon.
Most wealthy people are more intelligent than the average folk, because if you have the desire to become wealthy it wont mean dick if you don't have the intelligence. It's hard making the first million, each additional after that is easy. (With the exception of the IPO boom)
I knew someone who was worth on paper over a million, and because he was so thickly stupid became worth 2% of that in the course of six months. Don't criticize people who work hard to get what they have; it's childish. If genetic modifications for their children costs money, it's just another reward for them beating the system. For those who were born into wealth; so be it. For those born into poverty; get wealthy. It isn't hard. There are so many ways in which a dirt-poor person can 'beat the system' and come out on top. I know way too many people who have done that to not believe it. Fairy tales do come true; but you have to make them so.
How can you steal something that was given to you? Even if they didn't mean to give it to you, they still gave it to you. Intention does not change factual events.
Many spams don't tie any commercial interest to the recipient. A letter saying "buy our product" does not tie any commercial interest to the reader. It only delivers the old "give us money" message.
Delivering a direct "give us money" message is not a direct commercial interest? Strange understanding.
but, and that's the important part, don't you think that the webmaster would be capable of figuring that out herself?
Way too many people are just plain stupid, or don't know what they can or cannot do with any scope of technology. I view any correspondance that is purely information (as this was, 100% informational) to not be an unwelcome, time consuming, annoying piece of spam. I consider it to be an unwelcome reminder that most the population that has webservers don't understand a lot of the services available to them.
Gladly, now that you have acknowledged that is what has happened.
First off, lets relate directly to the spam definition you posted. First off, Google may (under the assumption it is Google) be sending these out, however it is far from a flood. Given that robots.txt are not a common place occurance on sites and from the email correlates emails to the different sites it blocks. Secondly, there is no counts or reports that this is a multiple-email therefor requiring no one any action to cease the receipt of the email.
Following the guidelines from spam.abuse.net (What is Spam?) this email really doesn't satisfy any of the direct arguments. I would say it is an annoying notification, similar to if you install Windows (My girlfriend got a new laptop with XP, let me tell you it is irritating) and it prompts you for updates and such. This is prompting you with information once. It's not a deluge that will cost anyone any amount of money (unless you are on a metered line with a 300bps modem) If you read the full What is Spam article, I think you will see that sending one email per server-admin while it correlates the email addresses to prevent the same email address getting blasted by 20 emails (in which case I would say you have a much stronger argument it is spam).
The commercial interest of it in no way ties to the recipient of the email, and in no way is their organization structured on the email. Yes, it may help get more sites indexed; but it is a far cry from email marketing. Calling any unsolicted email (which I back it is) spam is dangerous, because think of it this way: everytime you send a resume with an email to a company just to see if they have openings is the same course - yet not spam, right?
My problem is you still lie.
You are completly ommitting the "Add User-Agent: Googlebot" section, and claim they are tryin to get them "remove robots.txt" as you said they said.
Yes, the intent is to be able to index more pages.
Yes, Google has a commercial interest in indexing more pages.
No, it is not a commercial unsolicited message because the commercial link is not a direct relation.
Seriously, though, for unasked-for email, this example is relatively benign. Above all else, I find it odd and wonder whether I'll receive it soon enough. Why wouldn't Google just add more prominent notice of their own (existing) information regarding robots.txt to their site instead of undertaking an email campaign? Very odd and wasteful.
I dunno, I view these kind of emails like the DMV notices or USPS notices that get mailed out. Benign, pointful (usually) and 99.9% of the time wasteful. However, in the electronic frontier it is caused by marketing dorks. As is most the problems in the electronic space.
First point: it isn't bulk. Therefor, a count against it being spam.
Second point: They never ask you to remove it, they suggest if you want to let google search, add User-Agent: Googlebot. Big difference.
Third point: SPAM is SPAM. Google sending one email to a site is not. It isn't a commercial email, even though by getting more traffic to their site and happier customers generate email. It would be spam if they advertised anywhere in there that you can be listed as a sponsored link for the low low cost of $4.95 for the first hit $0.99 each additional. It wasn't.
It was unsolicted email, yes. It is not bulk, nor commercial. There for it is only 33.3% spam.
...to get people to remove the robots.txt file from their sites...
Bullshit you read it. The purpose of the email is to add a User-Agent: Googlebot to the robots.txt. Course you knew that didnt you? Be specific, otherwise you lie.
Yes, that is indeed what it said... sure.
Go read the email before posting lies.
Thank you, have a nice day.
I think that you misunderstood the purpose of the email. They do acknowledge and recognize that you setup the robots.txt - but offer a suggestion to allow google to index your site and no other bots (Unless their bots lie and say they are google)
I think it's perfectly clear in there, the line that states if it is your intention, ignore the rest of the email. I can understand your stance, but I hope you take into account that this was simply an informational email - and my guess is a lot of people don't know you can setup a robots.txt entry to allow one crawler but block others.
They still advocate and encourage robots.txt, and I personally find their email handy, well-worded, and non-intrusive. If they change their policy and start emailing them to you on a regular basis, let us know because then it's violating your personal space and I back your stance 100%. Till then, one email doesn't hurt - and it does provide useful information as well as acknowledging (not begging at all) that you may be perfectly content blocking the crawler bots.
Well, why don't you start out by writing a decent initial layer. And, you wouldn't want to use a regex because of computational overhead that is unnecessary for a fixed-length comparison as you put it. If you understood the obvious problems with your initial filter you might be qualified to teach CS on slashdot. Although, I really would like to see you run a query like that as your primary 'non-expensive' regex... it'd be a good laugh when you could do the same test in 2 lines of code that requires about half the overhead. Hell, with the overhead you save you could do a full mod10 check too - and actually get valid results. You wouldn't throw out 99% of the invalid pages too because your regex wasn't encapsulating only 16 objects - not even bounded so any page that had any number of sequential numbers would be passed to the second layer. That's fine and dandy but why not just do a comparison check that verifies it's a mod10 number in the first go? Oh right, because you are so l33t you don't need to worry about algorithm efficiency and overhead... my bad.
Posting code on slashdot does this, especially when you follow it up with a claim that you are some cool guy who understands all these principles of CS when it ends up you really have no clue how to design a high-load low-overhead algorithm to filter based on a relative scoring algorithm (in this case, it's a mod10 16-digit number scored at either 100% or 0% in the initial algorithm thereby ommitting any necessity for a pipe) the expiration date can also be computed after a CC number is found and inserted into an index query (passed two a second layer) and then using a lune check to calculate the proper pairing (with a score index based off of page/domain to filter the CC's to check against)
But hey.. you knew that right? This isn't coding, it's science. Big difference, go back to school.
Only if you made sense. Your regex was absolute drivel and didn't address any problem, nor would it work correctly because my guess you have no idea how credit card numbers are generated. They are mod10 numbers that have an algorithm based upon the expiration date (called the Lune Check, go google if curious) so if you have the expiration date (any 4 number string broken up in numerous different ways) and a 16 digit number you can match them up -- also anyone searching for credit card numbers with your regex is absolutely stupid and destined for failure.
The point wasn't lost on us, it was just simply a silly and overly pointless response. Links that contain passwords are a bad idea, but most "real" sites that offer password protection with session authentication don't have problems like sessions laying around for hijacking.
Also, a search engine that crawls upon link that contains password information would initiate a login/session pair on that site (given it is a session-based site) or just a persistent login (which is a bad idea anyway)
Feel free to get pissy; you are still wrong. And if that regex is a real demonstration of your coding abilities, you are way out of your league but I wont make a judgement about that - just a statement from a developer (who, incidently is writing a credit card processing engine at the moment) who knows the workings of credit card algorithms. And, on an unrelated side note just to vent: veriphone sucks.
That wont match anything useful, maybe I'm just missing something but it looks ... pointless.
That would match this hex string:
3c5e2a992b3c2a151...(dont feel like finishing typing it out)
and a plethora of other valid data. The reason why this algorithm is ugly is because all numbers that are mod10 are not credit card numbers.
What does your hint mean anyway? What does that have to do with anything? Expiring sessions that remove themselves when they timeout wont matter (which is relatively easy, you just have a scrub process stat the session lock and purge session if access time is > timeout time.)
That wont work at all. For instance, you seem to think that all numbers are credit cards and what about files that aren't named 'creditcards.txt'
besides, that makes no sense how that would have any desired effect whatsoever..