The majority of spam comments now are autogenerated with keywords and generic "thanks for this info, I will come back and read again" messages. Your typical user won't recognize this is spam. It's just like using bayseian filters for email spam.
In other words, the spammer's bots had rules to handle the particular image captcha you used, and didn't have rules for the ASCII one you chose.
It might have been a bad CAPTCHA system, I've seem some that do stupid things like put the actual letters in ALT text or the image asset URL. Hell, I've seen one that draws the image using javascript, and the original letters are right in the source for anyone to harvest with basic scripting abilities. Those kinds of systems are easily broken, and when you know a large percentage of a particular CMS install base uses the same broken system, you end up with the experience you described.
If your ASCII-based plugin becomes common, I guarantee the bots will start detecting and bypassing it.
You're just pushing the problem to the social media providers then. And they do captchas as well. There's plenty of fake social media profiles out there and if you use social media logins, be prepared for bots using fake or hijacked social profiles.
I know there's plenty of ways to break the intent of CAPTCHA. But at the moment it's still the easiest to implement and most difficult to break solution we have.
Until a better solution is developed, or CAPTCHA is completely broken, it's not going anywhere. It sucks, but for the most part it does work.
CAPTCHA will be around as long as it is the best way to stop programatic submissions.
CAPTCH sucks for sighted people as well, not just the visually impaired.
As long as we have need for tools to discern software from people, something like CAPTCHA will exist. And so far we haven't developed anything that only humans can do, but computers can't.
Free education, books etc. are MORE than compensation for any likeness usage the NCAA may ever resell.
You're missing my point. Since the athletic program monopolizes their time, they rarely get much of an education. They get a diploma, but not the education that it implies. Hence, they receive very little value.
Also, the kids that don't make it to the NFL aren't getting full ride scholarships. As I said before, those kids tend to get better degrees and a better education because they're partially responsible for paying for it, and so care more about the education itself.
If we follow the majority judges' logic to the end, groups will be unable to publish statistics on the players unless they have an agreement with every player. Agreements with the league about the league's statistics are no longer good enough. Sorry ESPN, your costs just went up.
EA is profiting from both the likeness and the stats. They pay a licensing cost to NCAA for both. Sure anyone can redistribute the facts, but when you take the facts to build a persona and place that persona in a fictional circumstance, you now are no longer simply using the statistic. Now you're capitalizing on the similarity of the persona to the real person, aka, their likeness.
Unions (theoretically) exist to protect the employees against the management through collective bargaining.
Unfortunately in the case of collegiate football, NCAA is the management, and the Universities are the staffing agencies, EA is a 3rd party buying the product, and no-one is representing the interests of the players.
And I don't think it's a bad ruling and I think the EFF is putting up a strawman argument. I think Zuckerburg should have seen compensation for The Social Network. It's clearly based on him, makes up things about him, and
Now I think he was smart in not making too much stink about it (which could have backfired in his IPO scheme and damaged the Facebook brand), but if he did, I think he would have been in the right, as much as I may not care for him personally.
In my opinion, reporting, repeating, or declaring facts is "fair use" (for lack of a better name). Placing the likeness or name of a real person in a fictional setting for profit should be protected. This is why movies love to use the disclaimer "All likeness or similarities to real people is unintentional."
If you publish a book with Harry Potter characters without getting permission from JK, are you going to get in trouble? Why should it be any different because you're using real people instead of fictitious characters?
The amount they get in a "free education" is far below what they could get from endorsement deals.
Furthermore, they're expected to spend all their time in training, practice, competition, etc., and are given very simple course loads which they are often just credited without doing any coursework. What is the value of the education in that scenario? When these kids break a bone as a rookie in the pro leagues, ending their career, how many say "Well at least I have a BA in > from > to fall back on?"
Hence my comment about rubber-stamp diplomas that provide these athletes with very little.
Granted, in the less popular sports, the athletes aren't getting as much "free education" or at least realize they have fairly little athletic earning potential over their lifetimes and so focus on their academics. Prestigious degrees are far more common in athletes outside of football and basketball.
I like to support the EFF, but I'm firmly in the camp of the athlete in this. Basically, collegiate athletes are unpaid, and the schools make tons of money off of their celebrity status. Then, EA swoops in and makes a contract with the private governing organization (NCAA) and gets to make even more money off of it. It's a guaranteed revenue stream as each year they release a new title with simply updated bitmaps and adjustments to values in the stats database. The NCAA gets a big fat chunk of profit (which they don't distribute). The schools also get big fat chunks of the profit (for using the school's trademarked logos and identities) but we somehow pretend that the athletes are amateurs and shouldn't be compensated beyond their education (which is little more than a rubber-stamped diploma).
I think it's atrocious, and I'm hoping this lawsuit shakes up the system substantially. The NCAA are the ones most at risk here in the fallout. EA won't be hit nearly as hard since this isn't their only major franchise, and the schools will still be able to license they way they always have.
So does this mean you could write a jailbreak for iOS device using a modified charger? If so, how is this any different than plugging the device into a computer?
Deciphering/Decrypting is not the same thing as Reverse Engineering.
Reverse Engineering is duplicating the functionality without seeing the source code. That should still be possible if you have the ability to run the program.
Inspectors have training in the building code (which is a lot more than just certifying a piece of structure meets certain engineering requirements). For example, does a room need fire sprinklers or not, how many exits does it need, can you place item X within Y feet of area Z when Z is used sometimes for W and sometimes for V.
Inspectors reject architectural and engineering specifications all the time. This is why your architect/engineer/contractor submit plan sets to the city planning department for permits.
Inspectors can't make design decisions, but they can say that the designs are not approved.
Lawyers aren't involved because it's unnecessary, and part of the job of the architect, engineers, and contractors to do this back and forth during the permit process and construction inspection process. Plus, there are extremely few lawyers with experience in this area, and they'll just hire architects/contractors/engineers as expert witnesses in the field.
You are wrong. Talk to an architect about the permitting and inspection process some time.
My wife is the architect handling construction administration on a $125M train station. She has had to deal with issues where one inspector explicitly reviewed and approved something in their plans, and now another from the same office is rejecting it as it is being built. She now has 3 alternatives for the client to choose from: spend $30K, $90K, or $1.5M (plus her time). And this is just on one small piece of a huge project.
Why does this happen? Because Building Codes, like most legal documents, are not as explicit as computer code. There's a lot of ambiguity and conflicts within building codes leaving much open to the interpretation of the individual inspector.
What you are describing is the cost of licensing a patent. The end purchaser shoulders the cost of patent licensing.
What I described was the cost of validating a patent. The patent filer shoulders the burden of patent validation (either directly through research, or indirectly through increased filing fees so that patent clerks do the research).
The patent filer can elect to recoup their costs by licensing or producing works that use their patent. However that is tangental to how the validation costs are handled in the filing and approval process.
What you described depends on the party-to-party licensing agreement. It is 100% between those two parties what to put in there. No laws force anything.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize there are javascript-enabled browsers out there that can be used as libraries in any software, including bots?
This would fail.
The majority of spam comments now are autogenerated with keywords and generic "thanks for this info, I will come back and read again" messages. Your typical user won't recognize this is spam. It's just like using bayseian filters for email spam.
In other words, the spammer's bots had rules to handle the particular image captcha you used, and didn't have rules for the ASCII one you chose.
It might have been a bad CAPTCHA system, I've seem some that do stupid things like put the actual letters in ALT text or the image asset URL. Hell, I've seen one that draws the image using javascript, and the original letters are right in the source for anyone to harvest with basic scripting abilities. Those kinds of systems are easily broken, and when you know a large percentage of a particular CMS install base uses the same broken system, you end up with the experience you described.
If your ASCII-based plugin becomes common, I guarantee the bots will start detecting and bypassing it.
If you are a high-profile site, the spammers will build rules to handle your specific form edge case.
You're just pushing the problem to the social media providers then. And they do captchas as well. There's plenty of fake social media profiles out there and if you use social media logins, be prepared for bots using fake or hijacked social profiles.
I know there's plenty of ways to break the intent of CAPTCHA. But at the moment it's still the easiest to implement and most difficult to break solution we have.
Until a better solution is developed, or CAPTCHA is completely broken, it's not going anywhere. It sucks, but for the most part it does work.
CAPTCHA will be around as long as it is the best way to stop programatic submissions.
CAPTCH sucks for sighted people as well, not just the visually impaired.
As long as we have need for tools to discern software from people, something like CAPTCHA will exist. And so far we haven't developed anything that only humans can do, but computers can't.
They aren't changing the Favicon, they're changing the contents of the title tag.
This is actually really simple, cross-browser supported, and a nice gesture for visitors.
This can be done in one line of Javascript if you add it to your play event. Here's a JQuery-flavored example:
$('title').html( "▶ " + $('title').html() );
Talk about an mind-boggling easy and straightforward solution. Surprising no one implemented it before.
If the device is connected to WiFi, it works.
Exactly the point and why their is a lawsuit against both EA and the NCAA.
You're missing my point. Since the athletic program monopolizes their time, they rarely get much of an education. They get a diploma, but not the education that it implies. Hence, they receive very little value.
Also, the kids that don't make it to the NFL aren't getting full ride scholarships. As I said before, those kids tend to get better degrees and a better education because they're partially responsible for paying for it, and so care more about the education itself.
No, they bought the product from the NCAA.
Unions (theoretically) exist to protect the employees against the management through collective bargaining.
Unfortunately in the case of collegiate football, NCAA is the management, and the Universities are the staffing agencies, EA is a 3rd party buying the product, and no-one is representing the interests of the players.
And I don't think it's a bad ruling and I think the EFF is putting up a strawman argument. I think Zuckerburg should have seen compensation for The Social Network. It's clearly based on him, makes up things about him, and
Now I think he was smart in not making too much stink about it (which could have backfired in his IPO scheme and damaged the Facebook brand), but if he did, I think he would have been in the right, as much as I may not care for him personally.
In my opinion, reporting, repeating, or declaring facts is "fair use" (for lack of a better name). Placing the likeness or name of a real person in a fictional setting for profit should be protected. This is why movies love to use the disclaimer "All likeness or similarities to real people is unintentional."
If you publish a book with Harry Potter characters without getting permission from JK, are you going to get in trouble? Why should it be any different because you're using real people instead of fictitious characters?
NCAA is being sued in this as well and the damages could be astronomic for them.
The amount they get in a "free education" is far below what they could get from endorsement deals.
Furthermore, they're expected to spend all their time in training, practice, competition, etc., and are given very simple course loads which they are often just credited without doing any coursework. What is the value of the education in that scenario? When these kids break a bone as a rookie in the pro leagues, ending their career, how many say "Well at least I have a BA in > from > to fall back on?"
Hence my comment about rubber-stamp diplomas that provide these athletes with very little.
Granted, in the less popular sports, the athletes aren't getting as much "free education" or at least realize they have fairly little athletic earning potential over their lifetimes and so focus on their academics. Prestigious degrees are far more common in athletes outside of football and basketball.
I like to support the EFF, but I'm firmly in the camp of the athlete in this. Basically, collegiate athletes are unpaid, and the schools make tons of money off of their celebrity status. Then, EA swoops in and makes a contract with the private governing organization (NCAA) and gets to make even more money off of it. It's a guaranteed revenue stream as each year they release a new title with simply updated bitmaps and adjustments to values in the stats database. The NCAA gets a big fat chunk of profit (which they don't distribute). The schools also get big fat chunks of the profit (for using the school's trademarked logos and identities) but we somehow pretend that the athletes are amateurs and shouldn't be compensated beyond their education (which is little more than a rubber-stamped diploma).
I think it's atrocious, and I'm hoping this lawsuit shakes up the system substantially. The NCAA are the ones most at risk here in the fallout. EA won't be hit nearly as hard since this isn't their only major franchise, and the schools will still be able to license they way they always have.
Disclaimer - I'm a fan of collegiate football.
So does this mean you could write a jailbreak for iOS device using a modified charger? If so, how is this any different than plugging the device into a computer?
Deciphering/Decrypting is not the same thing as Reverse Engineering.
Reverse Engineering is duplicating the functionality without seeing the source code. That should still be possible if you have the ability to run the program.
Inspectors have training in the building code (which is a lot more than just certifying a piece of structure meets certain engineering requirements). For example, does a room need fire sprinklers or not, how many exits does it need, can you place item X within Y feet of area Z when Z is used sometimes for W and sometimes for V.
Inspectors reject architectural and engineering specifications all the time. This is why your architect/engineer/contractor submit plan sets to the city planning department for permits.
Inspectors can't make design decisions, but they can say that the designs are not approved.
Lawyers aren't involved because it's unnecessary, and part of the job of the architect, engineers, and contractors to do this back and forth during the permit process and construction inspection process. Plus, there are extremely few lawyers with experience in this area, and they'll just hire architects/contractors/engineers as expert witnesses in the field.
You are wrong. Talk to an architect about the permitting and inspection process some time.
My wife is the architect handling construction administration on a $125M train station. She has had to deal with issues where one inspector explicitly reviewed and approved something in their plans, and now another from the same office is rejecting it as it is being built. She now has 3 alternatives for the client to choose from: spend $30K, $90K, or $1.5M (plus her time). And this is just on one small piece of a huge project.
Why does this happen? Because Building Codes, like most legal documents, are not as explicit as computer code. There's a lot of ambiguity and conflicts within building codes leaving much open to the interpretation of the individual inspector.
ProTip: That agreement is negotiable.
You're mixing up what I said.
What you are describing is the cost of licensing a patent.
The end purchaser shoulders the cost of patent licensing.
What I described was the cost of validating a patent.
The patent filer shoulders the burden of patent validation (either directly through research, or indirectly through increased filing fees so that patent clerks do the research).
The patent filer can elect to recoup their costs by licensing or producing works that use their patent. However that is tangental to how the validation costs are handled in the filing and approval process.
What you described depends on the party-to-party licensing agreement. It is 100% between those two parties what to put in there. No laws force anything.