In my opinion, his actions have been impulsive, shallow and unpredictable, and I hope he stays out of this debate -- even if he means well at heart. You know what they say about that road paved with good intentions...
Hmmm.... Good intentions, you say... Let's see TFA:
He appealed for "the ultimate solution", which was a music market place.
Market place... to me, it means: we sell it, you pay for it. Believe me, I don;t mind paying for it, I do mind however who are the sellers.
Market-place: is this the only reason music should be created? Is it the only way music should be distributed?
What about artists earning more from "live music" (touring - like it used to be before the copyright) and a bit less from selling "dead music"?
If the main source of profit comes from distributing the music instead of "living" it, concerts become (already became) only "a channel of promotion for records" (along many others)... perhaps this is why I still enjoy better going to "jam sessions" - at least music just happens then-and-there - I'd hate to see them disappearing because a corporate dick thinks them as "a less efficient way of promoting a record".
1. adjust the account email address to something at your choice. Potentially, follow this by a change of the password for that account.
You know, this can't actually result in an account takeover. Facebook implements a reasonably secure e-mail address change feature - all your existing e-mail addresses are notified and given the option to prevent the change.
Wanna bet? Here:
1. spambot adds the email address of one of the botmaster minions and changes the account password. The botmaster/minion ratifies the change in the password as soon as the email is received.
Unless Facebook require that all your email addresses to allow the change (and not only one), but I don't think it does (though, not being a FB user, I might be wrong in the matter of details).
[1] If you kick out the real user from his/her account you significantly raise the odds that someone is going to do something about/to you. Whereas previously the real user might not even notice his/her account is being used for spam, or not even care.
Security as a matter of cost...
Without the "kick-out" functionality, the spambot is better off (in the matter of costs) to live a parasitic life. With the "kick-out" functionality, it is likely that the spambot will "die" in that account once discovered... so what it has to loose by totally pwning it?
If it doesn't pwn, the first time the user logs-in, it's goodbye cruel world.
If it pwnes the account, it will get to live at least some time more until the user will call into Facebook support, prove that she/he is the rightful owner, have somebody reset the account email/password, etc. Heck, that's a long time in the life a a bot, so many spam messages to generate. I would venture to say that it will be a long time even for the human beings... especially if the user is not an US resident (to have an easier access to support over the phone... required, in my opinion, if you want to really certify an ownership)
Which path do you think the spambot author will take, to give the bot the best chance of life?
Funny thing, by implementing a "half-baked" solution, Facebook escalates the level of fight, but not enough to cut its cost in support on medium term.
Which can be phished for far easier - you just send them an 'urgent' sounding email, they click on the link and you get it.
In general I guess you get better results from
"Facebook: Account Acting Strangely... We think you may have been hacked, please visit [link] to see whether there are computers you didn't use"
instead of "Facebook: Your piggies are dying, please feed them"
Maybe there could be better results, but only marginally better. Suppose that the bot changes the email of the account after breaking in and ignores any emails?
Yes, unless there is another, single-use password specifically for this purpose, sent to the contact email address.
Pseudo-code for the spambot enhancement:
0. break into account as usual
1. adjust the account email address to something at your choice. Potentially, follow this by a change of the password for that account.
2. kick out any attempt of any (legitimate or not) entity trying to login into the account.
If the breaker is not a spambot but another human being, I don't think there is something that can be done without human intervention (i.e. the "kick-out" functionality looks to me like rather a cosmetic enhancement - like "Just don't say that I'm doing nothing at all").
Following your argument that God aka Gravity has always existed...
then TFA
Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.""
So, I wonder, what the Gravity was thinking when It created Adam and Eve?
that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.
The "good": this is why the governments feel the need to step in and protect you.
The 'bad": the govs are made of people equally no longer responsible for their actions!
The "ugly": while your lack of responsibility is potentially punishable, theirs are not.
Yes, lot of handicap to recover. But seems to me Aussies are stepping up the pace lately - they may get in front soon. Maybe the Americans and Brits will be willing to keep the lead?
I mean: c'mon, mates, there are so many (already existing) delicious combinations in the Imaginary Property area:
Why stop here? Why not put aside the common-sense, let the imagination free and come with other niceties as well? Here, lemme try to open a list, by all means please step in and extend it:
copyright-able patents - a patent which's description is copyrighted: nobody is allowed to publish/reproduce it, in part or whole, without the consent of the owner. For 70 years or more after the inventor's death... as a side-effect, this will lower the social cost related with dealing with submarine patents (all the patents will be, in effect, submarine) or other exceptions (even if beneficial for the society)
trademark-able copyright - a copyright-able creation should not only be protected against reproductions, but against lookalikes as well (like: JK Rowling being finally able to stop the creation of novels on the theme: child, with powerful enemies, gets around using supernatural powers)
trademark-able human being - no lookalike-s are allowed. When found, they will be confiscated and destroyed, the punishment against perpetrators is let to the choice of every country/state - Texas is allowed to prefer the death sentence, even if lenient for plain-and-simple patent suits
PS. mods, if you think the above is trollish or flamebite, that's OK. But if you reckon the above is funny, I seriously think there's something wrong with you.
Arguing over the finer points of what entails "anything" is indeed to miss any point the speaker is trying to make, and just being argumentative for its own sake.
Or just going on a tangent and (pleasant as it would be) waste some more time on/.? (relax, cool down, unwind, start seeing colors where only black-and-white used to be)
3: Maybe they just really liked their beer which is why so many of them drank it.
Yeap, and they used to feed their kids heaps of beer on regular basis (??!).Or maybe they weren't their kids after all? (hint: search for "nubians" on the page and read around a bit).
My point is: generating hypotheses (and verifying them) is quite risky when the cultural/ethical/time distances are huge.
BTW: does anyone know how stable the tetracyclines are in hydrofluoric acid?
Or perhaps, being technical types, you and clodney are overestimating the importance of technical quality. End-user sales are increased through marketing, not quality products.
Hey, again, as a matter of nuance: I never said that this is a valid point (i.e. never said that quality is the only factor that drives the sales). I only said that "MS will not quite do everything to boost the sales"is a point.
As for my opinion on the validity of this point: of course "playing nice" (or pretending, thereof) costs a heap less than "fix the crap". This is not to say that MS doesn't fix the bugs or doesn't implement requested features (because they eventually do it, otherwise no need for Windows Update). And is also not to say that one is not allowed to hope for a better quality/level-of-service from MS.
So let's see. Microsoft will do anything that it thinks will boost sales.
You accurately summarized my paragraph...
Those bastards! Next thing you know they will have the audacity to start fixing bugs that people complain about, or implement features that are requested, or even make products that they think people will buy! Oh Noes! The horror. The horror!
...yet managed to completely miss the point. Maybe you don't want to see the point, but I'll try.
Speaking about missing the point, he might be in your company, then. Because you missed a point in her/his reply as well: Microsoft will not do quite anything to boost the sales, and here are some examples:start fixing bugs, implement features that are requested.
Not saying that she/he intended the above as a point, but I'm still seeing it as a point even if not intended.
So it's more dense than NAND flash (and 3D, wow!), but how does it compare on speed, reliability, and endurance?
Taking a wild-guess here. TFA states that the 1/0 is stored as a nanowire that is continuous/interrupted (thus not require any electric charge).
Yao applied a charge to the electrodes, which created a conductive pathway by stripping oxygen atoms from the silicon oxide, forming a chain of nanometer-sized silicon crystals. Once formed, the chain can be repeatedly broken and reconnected by applying a pulse of varying voltage, the University said.
It seems reasonable to think:
speed - blind-fast reads with very low currents. Writes (which will require currents to make/break the nanowire) might be slow and will certainly require higher currents (how fast the oxygen atoms can migrate at the nm scale in silicon dioxide?)
reliability - high - no electric charge required to store the info (reliable reads). Writes - probably high as well (based on, for example, "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" scheme)
endurance - practically infinite for reads (even in harsh conditions of radiations - no electric charge). Writes? Probably limited but I doubt that even the researchers do know
You really have to wonder what goes on in the minds of that company's leaders.
Possible explanation: we'll try to get them hooked on Sony at younger ages, they'll go for the next-gen sony-es when they'll grow. If that's indeed what are they thinking, there might be a small flaw in their rationing: the sponsors for kids console/games are the parents - the marketing message should be directed towards them.
Neither has a Linux port for the SDK (wink - wonder why this is posted on/. then?)
Seriously, anyone with some references on similar devices that have Linux support?
The real problem is that Americans are blaming other Americans for something they had nothing to do with. Who exactly is being terrorised here? If I was an American Muslim I really wouldn't choose to go that Mosque the chances of some "patriot" deciding to shoot me on my way to church or blowing the place up really would be quite unsettling.
Exactly right. Same level of provocation (that should remain only at an intellectual level) as the teacher in TFA.
Anyway, two good ideas (maybe not the best), both of them creating absurd visceral reactions: makes me feel like either I'm born much too early or much too late.
p>However the concept of the Mosque is very powerful since it asks Americans to think and that is a good thing.
Once again, agree: with the note that, unfortunately, it is not only the Americans that should do it. Even more depressing: a person meant to teach the kids how to think is shooed when she actually tries to do it.
The idea of the mosque was to provide a place to heal the wounds of 9/11 and the first thing that needs to be recognised is that it wasn't american muslims that carried out 9/11.
Generous and correct idea, an extremely risky implementation.
Assume that the mosque will be built at ground zero, can you imagine what will happen if it is vandalized/desecrated by even a single person that just doesn't get it? (and how many are the ones that don't get it). Funny thing, a risk of the same nature that the teacher in TFA took: many will get the message wrong and possible the issue will escalate (unfortunately, not only at the/. level).
In my opinion you should aim to remove the objective of your enemy. Utterly destroy what the gorilla fighters are fighting to reclaim/protect. The scotched earth way.
What terrorists want is terror. Meaning, their objective is to remove your peace of mind, disturb your way of life (killing some, the probability of being you the one that's killed is non-zero). Would you care to translate your scorched earth metaphor when the earth is your way of life? What if the earth is your life?
Yes, removing their motivation to terrorize you is a solution (and not the only one - each of the solutions have its merits and costs). But I don't think that removing the objective (which, I argue, is something different from motivation) is a solution. Unfortunately the same confusion seems to be made by the governments: in the name of protecting our life-style (values, etc) they are choosing means that actually destroy them (violence - the last resort of the incompetent. Funny how quick the govs showed their incompetence).
It was more or less a military exercise in how to kill people which is disturbing considering the targets were innocent civilians and the desired outcome was to force an entity entirely different to adopt some political line.
These are good reasons to think about such attacks; what vulnerabilities they would use, how to defend against them, the cost/benefit analysis of such defenses, and the like.
<sarcasm>Why would you want to think of vulnerabilities, defense, cost/benefit and the like? Kid, you need to learn to obey the laws - and not question them - and your pay taxes - the more the better - to us to defend you.
And, while doing all of the above, we'll eventually let you be proud you are the free and the brave if living in some countries and a terrorist if you are living in some others; even more, it will always be us to decide which are those other countries: if you remember other times it used to be different (like we replaced an elected leader with the shah in some obscure places), you are totally wrong - there weren't such times ever (we were always at war Eastasia).</sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
then they can run around stealing gold instead of whatever it is they do now to fleece the public
In the same context, what about: "You died! Game over! Play again?"?
In my opinion, his actions have been impulsive, shallow and unpredictable, and I hope he stays out of this debate -- even if he means well at heart. You know what they say about that road paved with good intentions...
Hmmm.... Good intentions, you say... Let's see TFA:
He appealed for "the ultimate solution", which was a music market place.
Market place... to me, it means: we sell it, you pay for it. Believe me, I don;t mind paying for it, I do mind however who are the sellers.
Market-place: is this the only reason music should be created? Is it the only way music should be distributed?
What about artists earning more from "live music" (touring - like it used to be before the copyright) and a bit less from selling "dead music"?
If the main source of profit comes from distributing the music instead of "living" it, concerts become (already became) only "a channel of promotion for records" (along many others)... perhaps this is why I still enjoy better going to "jam sessions" - at least music just happens then-and-there - I'd hate to see them disappearing because a corporate dick thinks them as "a less efficient way of promoting a record".
When do we land a human on the Sun?
Are you serious? The Sun's way too hot. Humans can't survive on the surface, except at night.
So what? Terraform at night time, get underground during the day... keep doing it until terraformation complete.
1. adjust the account email address to something at your choice. Potentially, follow this by a change of the password for that account.
You know, this can't actually result in an account takeover. Facebook implements a reasonably secure e-mail address change feature - all your existing e-mail addresses are notified and given the option to prevent the change.
Wanna bet? Here:
1. spambot adds the email address of one of the botmaster minions and changes the account password. The botmaster/minion ratifies the change in the password as soon as the email is received.
Unless Facebook require that all your email addresses to allow the change (and not only one), but I don't think it does (though, not being a FB user, I might be wrong in the matter of details).
No it's a reasonably useful feature.
[1] If you kick out the real user from his/her account you significantly raise the odds that someone is going to do something about/to you. Whereas previously the real user might not even notice his/her account is being used for spam, or not even care.
Security as a matter of cost...
Without the "kick-out" functionality, the spambot is better off (in the matter of costs) to live a parasitic life. With the "kick-out" functionality, it is likely that the spambot will "die" in that account once discovered... so what it has to loose by totally pwning it?
Which path do you think the spambot author will take, to give the bot the best chance of life?
Funny thing, by implementing a "half-baked" solution, Facebook escalates the level of fight, but not enough to cut its cost in support on medium term.
Which can be phished for far easier - you just send them an 'urgent' sounding email, they click on the link and you get it.
In general I guess you get better results from
"Facebook: Account Acting Strangely... We think you may have been hacked, please visit [link] to see whether there are computers you didn't use"
instead of "Facebook: Your piggies are dying, please feed them"
Maybe there could be better results, but only marginally better. Suppose that the bot changes the email of the account after breaking in and ignores any emails?
Yes, unless there is another, single-use password specifically for this purpose, sent to the contact email address.
Pseudo-code for the spambot enhancement:
0. break into account as usual
1. adjust the account email address to something at your choice. Potentially, follow this by a change of the password for that account.
2. kick out any attempt of any (legitimate or not) entity trying to login into the account.
If the breaker is not a spambot but another human being, I don't think there is something that can be done without human intervention (i.e. the "kick-out" functionality looks to me like rather a cosmetic enhancement - like "Just don't say that I'm doing nothing at all").
Following your argument that God aka Gravity has always existed...
then TFA
Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, Hawking wrote: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.""
So, I wonder, what the Gravity was thinking when It created Adam and Eve?
Jesus, you are 1.5 meters in diameter?
No, I'm not. Signed: Jesus
that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.
The "good": this is why the governments feel the need to step in and protect you.
The 'bad": the govs are made of people equally no longer responsible for their actions!
The "ugly": while your lack of responsibility is potentially punishable, theirs are not.
But seems to me Aussies are stepping up the pace lately - they may get in front soon. Maybe the Americans and Brits will be willing to keep the lead?
I mean: c'mon, mates, there are so many (already existing) delicious combinations in the Imaginary Property area:
Why stop here? Why not put aside the common-sense, let the imagination free and come with other niceties as well? Here, lemme try to open a list, by all means please step in and extend it:
PS. mods, if you think the above is trollish or flamebite, that's OK. But if you reckon the above is funny, I seriously think there's something wrong with you.
Arguing over the finer points of what entails "anything" is indeed to miss any point the speaker is trying to make, and just being argumentative for its own sake.
Or just going on a tangent and (pleasant as it would be) waste some more time on /.? (relax, cool down, unwind, start seeing colors where only black-and-white used to be)
3: Maybe they just really liked their beer which is why so many of them drank it.
Yeap, and they used to feed their kids heaps of beer on regular basis (??!).Or maybe they weren't their kids after all? (hint: search for "nubians" on the page and read around a bit).
My point is: generating hypotheses (and verifying them) is quite risky when the cultural/ethical/time distances are huge.
BTW: does anyone know how stable the tetracyclines are in hydrofluoric acid?
Or perhaps, being technical types, you and clodney are overestimating the importance of technical quality. End-user sales are increased through marketing, not quality products.
Hey, again, as a matter of nuance: I never said that this is a valid point (i.e. never said that quality is the only factor that drives the sales). I only said that "MS will not quite do everything to boost the sales" is a point.
As for my opinion on the validity of this point: of course "playing nice" (or pretending, thereof) costs a heap less than "fix the crap". This is not to say that MS doesn't fix the bugs or doesn't implement requested features (because they eventually do it, otherwise no need for Windows Update). And is also not to say that one is not allowed to hope for a better quality/level-of-service from MS.
You accurately summarized my paragraph...
Speaking about missing the point, he might be in your company, then.
Because you missed a point in her/his reply as well: Microsoft will not do quite anything to boost the sales, and here are some examples:start fixing bugs, implement features that are requested.
Not saying that she/he intended the above as a point, but I'm still seeing it as a point even if not intended.
So it's more dense than NAND flash (and 3D, wow!), but how does it compare on speed, reliability, and endurance?
Taking a wild-guess here.
TFA states that the 1/0 is stored as a nanowire that is continuous/interrupted (thus not require any electric charge).
It seems reasonable to think:
You really have to wonder what goes on in the minds of that company's leaders.
Possible explanation: we'll try to get them hooked on Sony at younger ages, they'll go for the next-gen sony-es when they'll grow.
If that's indeed what are they thinking, there might be a small flaw in their rationing: the sponsors for kids console/games are the parents - the marketing message should be directed towards them.
Neither has a Linux port for the SDK (wink - wonder why this is posted on /. then?)
Seriously, anyone with some references on similar devices that have Linux support?
What if i exercise sitting down? I bounce my legs up and down like a drummer for most of the day. Does that count as not sitting?
This will elevate the bouncing your legs to a higher intellectual level - less likely to get Alzheimer's too.
The real problem is that Americans are blaming other Americans for something they had nothing to do with. Who exactly is being terrorised here? If I was an American Muslim I really wouldn't choose to go that Mosque the chances of some "patriot" deciding to shoot me on my way to church or blowing the place up really would be quite unsettling.
Exactly right. Same level of provocation (that should remain only at an intellectual level) as the teacher in TFA.
Anyway, two good ideas (maybe not the best), both of them creating absurd visceral reactions: makes me feel like either I'm born much too early or much too late.
p>However the concept of the Mosque is very powerful since it asks Americans to think and that is a good thing.
Once again, agree: with the note that, unfortunately, it is not only the Americans that should do it. Even more depressing: a person meant to teach the kids how to think is shooed when she actually tries to do it.
However, on this line, I do feel a sense of danger for the people of the book if they would start a social networking site.
Year book
Not a patent, but a trademark case/suit. Different fish, same stink when rotten.
The idea of the mosque was to provide a place to heal the wounds of 9/11 and the first thing that needs to be recognised is that it wasn't american muslims that carried out 9/11.
Generous and correct idea, an extremely risky implementation.
Assume that the mosque will be built at ground zero, can you imagine what will happen if it is vandalized/desecrated by even a single person that just doesn't get it? (and how many are the ones that don't get it). /. level).
Funny thing, a risk of the same nature that the teacher in TFA took: many will get the message wrong and possible the issue will escalate (unfortunately, not only at the
In my opinion you should aim to remove the objective of your enemy. Utterly destroy what the gorilla fighters are fighting to reclaim/protect. The scotched earth way.
What terrorists want is terror. Meaning, their objective is to remove your peace of mind, disturb your way of life (killing some, the probability of being you the one that's killed is non-zero).
Would you care to translate your scorched earth metaphor when the earth is your way of life? What if the earth is your life?
Yes, removing their motivation to terrorize you is a solution (and not the only one - each of the solutions have its merits and costs). But I don't think that removing the objective (which, I argue, is something different from motivation) is a solution. Unfortunately the same confusion seems to be made by the governments: in the name of protecting our life-style (values, etc) they are choosing means that actually destroy them (violence - the last resort of the incompetent. Funny how quick the govs showed their incompetence).
These are good reasons to think about such attacks; what vulnerabilities they would use, how to defend against them, the cost/benefit analysis of such defenses, and the like.
<sarcasm>Why would you want to think of vulnerabilities, defense, cost/benefit and the like? Kid, you need to learn to obey the laws - and not question them - and your pay taxes - the more the better - to us to defend you.
And, while doing all of the above, we'll eventually let you be proud you are the free and the brave if living in some countries and a terrorist if you are living in some others; even more, it will always be us to decide which are those other countries: if you remember other times it used to be different (like we replaced an elected leader with the shah in some obscure places), you are totally wrong - there weren't such times ever (we were always at war Eastasia).</sarcasm>