I have seen Google wrap search results as well, but only when Personal Search is enabled. I'm just asking for evidence that shows that google wraps searches at any other time. I haven't seen any.
Google has been known to keel over at the slightest legal threat: witness the sudden disappearance of anti-Scientology and KaZaA Lite links after legal pressure from the CoS and KaZaA respectively.
When you search for scientology on google, the 2nd hit points to Operation Clambake, the anti-scientology web site. The 4th hit points to something called "Scientology Lies".
When you search for kazaa lite, every other link seems to be (I haven't checked) a download link for Kazaa Lite.
I don't see much evidence of keeling over on Google's part.
The link you gave is to a discussion board where someone says that Google tracks clicks. An assertion on some random internet discussion board is not a very solid argument. The only way I've been able to see the click tracking on Google is to turn on the 'Personal Search' feature. I have yet to see any evidence which says otherwise.
The Google wrapper is just there to keep track of clickthoughs for the 'Personal Search' feature. If you don't turn it on the wrappers will not be there. The parent implies that ALL google searches have this Google wrapper - the implication is that Google is doing evil. In fact, you have to turn this behavior on. This is a feature (dubious, I think) and not a feature creep into evil by Google.
Hmmm. Flying airplanes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians is the same as freeing a few animals and throwing paint at people wearing fur coats. I think I see your point.
The number of passes in radix sort is not dependent on the number of items in the list, n. Therefore the number of passes is not log n. The number of passes in radix sort in based on the length of the key being sorted. And for most data is a finite number, k. Therefore the complexity of radix sort is O(kn), where k is finite and not related to n at all, and thus the complexity is O(n). I think your rationale assumes that the length of the key you are sorting can be infinite.
I have yet to make up my mind if this is a service that should even be provided by the government. It may be better left to private organizations to ensure that the government does not restrict or monitor information across the network.
You trust corporations who are legally bound to maximize profit and would not be constrained by law over a government that is freely elected?
I would rather have some sort of accountability and transparency. Imagine if Microsoft was in charge of the network vs. the your local city government to see what I'm getting at.
If the PCR value does not match, the system will still boot. But it will not be "trusted". If the system isn't trusted, then 3rd parties have the option of not allowing things to run on your machine. These third parties could be evil (MPAA, etc) or good (see the trustedgentoo link).
That study did not take into account "editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor," which is where some slant in the media comes from. They also came to the conclusion that the Drudge Report "is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample". I think the methodology of that report should be takin with a grain of salt. I'm just sayin'...
What the hell is all this reasoned and polite debate doing on slashdot? I come hear to get hot under the collar and spew meaningless, incoherent, and incorrect propaganda - not learn and stuff. Please take this crap elsewhere. Thanks.
Okay, I guess the *silly example* isn't very pertinent, considering how you've just decided that being stuck at a tollbooth and short 50 cents is better than having your car lifted.
If you re-read my reply you'll see I did not say that. You seem to have missed my point. But that's OK.
So, right now I believe my computer to be secure. You're telling me that if I disconnect it from the firewall and leave my system barebone cable-modem connected to the net, I am more secure just because I know this. Maybe my head is filled with cheese, because I just don't get it.
Again. This is not my point, nor is it what I am saying. A firewall is not security through obscurity - it is a proven security tecnology. My point is simple: security through obscurity gives a false sense of security - and a false sense of security is worse than no security at all. Trust placed in an insecure system is misplaced trust. And mispaced trust is dangerous.
Do you see?
And, maybe they do pretty well -- maybe they *are* smarter than everyone else, able to keep ahead of the haxors and scriptkiddies... for awhile.
And I would not trust them because the likelihood that they are correct is very small. Instead of trusting them I would use proven security techniques.
But, if I leave the car locked but don't tell anyone how its locked, now the thief needs to figure out how to break into the car, and then be able to start it.
"Security through obscurity" is better than nothing at all.
Well, that's kind of a silly example. But I'll go with it to show how security through obscurity is worse than no security at all.
Suppose in your obscurely locked car, you keep change for the toll road in your ashtray. When you get in your car in the morning, you note that is appears that your obscurely locked car has not been broken into. So you start driving and get on the toll road. Now when you come to your first toll, you reach into the ashtray only to discover that someone did stumble on to the way to unlock your car and has stolen all your change! You're stuck at the booth with no change.
Now if you has just left the car unlocked you would have checked the ashtray before you got on on the toll road. Afterall, someone could've just opened the door and stolen your change because the car is not locked at all. If someone had, you'd note it before you even left your house and could replace it before driving.
But because you assumed that your car was secure, you've been tricked into a false sense of security -- which is worse than knowing you are not secure.
Security through obsucrity is worse than no security at all.
Now if you assume that no-one has broken into your car, then there is no need to check whether or not someone has stolen your change.
Security through obscurity is worse than no security. It gives you a false sense of security, which means you may do dangerous things under the assumption that you are secure.
No. He said it was the "end of major combat operations". And since then, 1000 US soldiers have been killed. In fact the heaviest fighting of the war so far happened after that speech.
Then the data would be encrypted. The parent asked if you tell the difference between random garbage and an encrypted message. If the message compresses, then it is not encrypted. This was my only point. And it's not a very good one at that.
Random garbage might be compressable. (But not if it was perfectly random garbage, mind you.) Encrypted data does not compress. Not much of an argument, but there it is.
Slashdot Mirror
You would think that they would know where everything in their car is.
I have seen Google wrap search results as well, but only when Personal Search is enabled. I'm just asking for evidence that shows that google wraps searches at any other time. I haven't seen any.
When you search for scientology on google, the 2nd hit points to Operation Clambake, the anti-scientology web site. The 4th hit points to something called "Scientology Lies".
When you search for kazaa lite, every other link seems to be (I haven't checked) a download link for Kazaa Lite.
I don't see much evidence of keeling over on Google's part.
The link you gave is to a discussion board where someone says that Google tracks clicks. An assertion on some random internet discussion board is not a very solid argument. The only way I've been able to see the click tracking on Google is to turn on the 'Personal Search' feature. I have yet to see any evidence which says otherwise.
The Google wrapper is just there to keep track of clickthoughs for the 'Personal Search' feature. If you don't turn it on the wrappers will not be there. The parent implies that ALL google searches have this Google wrapper - the implication is that Google is doing evil. In fact, you have to turn this behavior on. This is a feature (dubious, I think) and not a feature creep into evil by Google.
Oh come on - you can do better than that. It's like you're not even trying. At least make it slightly plausible.
Hmmm. Flying airplanes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians is the same as freeing a few animals and throwing paint at people wearing fur coats. I think I see your point.
I don't think they were worried about PETA, so much as terrorists. Nice spin though.
No it can't.
You trust corporations who are legally bound to maximize profit and would not be constrained by law over a government that is freely elected?
I would rather have some sort of accountability and transparency. Imagine if Microsoft was in charge of the network vs. the your local city government to see what I'm getting at.
If the PCR value does not match, the system will still boot. But it will not be "trusted". If the system isn't trusted, then 3rd parties have the option of not allowing things to run on your machine. These third parties could be evil (MPAA, etc) or good (see the trustedgentoo link).
That study did not take into account "editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor," which is where some slant in the media comes from. They also came to the conclusion that the Drudge Report "is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample". I think the methodology of that report should be takin with a grain of salt. I'm just sayin'...
What the hell is all this reasoned and polite debate doing on slashdot? I come hear to get hot under the collar and spew meaningless, incoherent, and incorrect propaganda - not learn and stuff. Please take this crap elsewhere. Thanks.
Easy, by running a P2P client and getting the file just like everyone else.
"Make a man a fire, and you warm him for a night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for a lifetime." -- Author unknown.
Suppose in your obscurely locked car, you keep change for the toll road in your ashtray. When you get in your car in the morning, you note that is appears that your obscurely locked car has not been broken into. So you start driving and get on the toll road. Now when you come to your first toll, you reach into the ashtray only to discover that someone did stumble on to the way to unlock your car and has stolen all your change! You're stuck at the booth with no change.
Now if you has just left the car unlocked you would have checked the ashtray before you got on on the toll road. Afterall, someone could've just opened the door and stolen your change because the car is not locked at all. If someone had, you'd note it before you even left your house and could replace it before driving.
But because you assumed that your car was secure, you've been tricked into a false sense of security -- which is worse than knowing you are not secure.
Security through obsucrity is worse than no security at all. Now if you assume that no-one has broken into your car, then there is no need to check whether or not someone has stolen your change.
Security through obscurity is worse than no security. It gives you a false sense of security, which means you may do dangerous things under the assumption that you are secure.
This is only to be expected -- he really is outstanding in his field.
No. He said it was the "end of major combat operations". And since then, 1000 US soldiers have been killed. In fact the heaviest fighting of the war so far happened after that speech.
Encrypted data is already compressed.
Then the data would be encrypted. The parent asked if you tell the difference between random garbage and an encrypted message. If the message compresses, then it is not encrypted. This was my only point. And it's not a very good one at that.
Cryptographers have a much tougher definition of random than your average person. Thus my point about not perfectly random.
Random garbage might be compressable. (But not if it was perfectly random garbage, mind you.) Encrypted data does not compress. Not much of an argument, but there it is.