Why don't the banks use their own DNS servers to automatically check for new domains registered with "citibank" etc. in their name? That way you can detect many possible phishing schemes that try to look "authentic" even before they are necessarily active? It'd at the very least narrow the window of time for phishers to populate a DNS record, let it propagate, then release their attack...
In TFA unveiling the NSA program (posted here a few days ago), they specifically talked about this. Qwest asked the NSA to go get a warrant for the records from the special 11-person court created in 1978 specifically for overseeing secret telecommunications monitoring. The NSA actually said (according to two sources of the article) that they didn't want to to do that is case the court disagreed with them.
Well, at least the companies aren't giving away the names and addresses of people with the phone records. This would require a warrant! The data is safely anonymous, so data mining is okay.
I'm sure no one at the NSA knows how to use the reverse lookup on superpages.com or any of those other sites...
The difference is that people decide to smoke, or decide to drive places. There is a risk you accept *by deciding to participate* in these activities. Risk vs. reward. The goal of the terrorists is to make you feel that *for no reason other than being American*, you are at risk.
An analogy (of sorts): Someone doesn't want to live in a neighbourhood (America) because there are lots of drive-by shootings. The drug-dealers accept the risk of their activity, but you might accidentally die from a stray bullet for no reason other than that you live there. Statistically you will probably die of some other cause, but you focus on the drive-bys because you aren't doing a risk-reward trade-off.
Perhaps this is a better angle: If a corporation is subject to criminal liability, "it" must be able to distinguish between right and wrong. Otherwise the corporation would be found not fit to stand trial. I'm talking about cases when the corporation itself is on trial, not its employees.
If the corporation can and should distinguish between right and wrong, it is well on its way to being moral (or immoral as the case may be).
I think you missed the point: we were talking about anthropomorphization. He said that ascribing human characteristics to an abstract entity doesn't make sense. I am saying that there is generally accepted precedence for this activity within the context of a "corporation". I didn't say corporations are moral, just that you don't have to be idiotic to anthropomorphize.
In the article, he says that it is silly to consider Microsoft "Evil" because you can't ascribe human characteristics to a company:
I've publically [sic] argued for more diversity in computing environments. But there's one thing people do that really drives me nuts: anthropomorphization.
"Corporation" derives from the latin for "body", and corporations are considered "persons" in the law. A corporation can be convicted of criminal offenses, sue others for libel, etc.. So perhaps you don't have to be an "idiot" to ascribe moral characteristics to one?
The other option is to hedge your bets. Buy stock in all of the companies you dispise the most. Take your pick, tobacco, Microsoft, oil companies propping up corrupt governments, etc. etc.. If these companies fail, you can take comfort in your loses because your conscience won. If these companies continue to succeed, take your profits and give them to the groups opposing these groups, e.g. open-source foundations, green energy developers, etc..
I'd take a compromise. By default I'd allow pings to the domain the HTML page came from, but would require specific user enabling to allow other sites to be pinged.
At every major league game there is an Official Scorer. A fan could not guarantee properly recording the permanent record of a game without having access to the pressbox in which the official scorer sits. For those not really familiar with baseball, there are a lot of judgement calls on the part of the Official Scorer, such as errors, field's choices, sacrifice flys and bunts, etc. etc.. Because baseball is not a sport with continuous action, but rather many, many discreet events, it is REALLY full of stats compared to other sports. Major League Baseball pays these guys (independent contractors) $135 per game. Elias Sports Bureau is the company that collects the data from the scorers (via fax) for MLB and makes it into a database, so they obviously get paid something too.
Which is great, because in my experience gcc has a bad backend on Solaris. When I compile with cc instead of gcc, I often see a 30-50% reduction in process execution turnaround time, while using less CPU too!
Anyone who compares two apps on sparc-solaris and x86-linux should really keep this in mind...
I have met Sun kernel developers, and they run Solaris x86 as their desktops. So yeah, they've definitely been supporting it the whole time, whether the head honchos felt that way or not...
Two points that I think are largely overlooked when people are bitching about Java:
1. Yes the native code interface requires you to include a new step in your compile process (javah), and that is inconvenient. It's not rocket science though. I figured it out in an hour or less for a proprietary C API I was wrapping. It's just inconvenient enough to discourage users from importing large chunks of code outside the control of the JVM. To some this as a feature, to others not. How many Java apps are wrappers around parts of existing C/C++ apps? How many C#/.NET apps are wrappers around parts of existing C/C_++ apps?
2. We use Java in my group for one important reason: we write applets. We have an even split between Windows, UNIX and Mac users from all over the world (welcome to the wonderful world of molecular biology). Many do not even have the privileges to install software on their computers. Many others are too lazy to install the program just to try it out. It needs to be launchable and scriptable from many Web pages. It's interactive visualization that can't be done nicely via some server side solution. People may like/dislike various features of the language, but when it comes to its original market of running remote code, I don't see anybody really challenging it yet...
You have to look at the total cost of ownership though. Suppose you are a business manager in a firm, in addition to the cost of the buying machines you have to consider:
-Man hours spent unpackingly and assembling the cluster (hartdware and software installs) -Networking infrastructure (the switches will cost you a few thousand at least for a decent cluster) -Physical space to put the machines (no one wants this space heater next to their desk) -Electricity cost of running the cluster and cooling the space -Man hours spent getting patches, checking for hardware issues, etc. (i.e. sysadmin time) -Man hours spent adding this equipment to inventory lists for the accounting department.
Plus other stuff I haven't thought of yet. These costs (especialy people time and space logistics) are often a bigger factor than the commodity equipment cost. Plus, if your cluster sucks, you have no one to blame but yourself! If your core business is selling widgets, giving a company $1 per CPU hour to process a big important job doesn't sound like such a bad idea, unless you're running it over and over again...
Either that, or our company was cheap. I was working 13 years ago:-) We taped magnetic markers onto the film for automation of the lights, curtains, etc., (which is what I assume you mean by "attached to the print"), but had to change lenses by hand.
Please. "Anamorphic" is a type of lens, not a particular lens, therefore the statement "anamorphic lenses shoot 2.35" is incorrect. Both 1.85 and 2.35 are used commercially, though 1.85 was more frequent in my day (and hence I used it in the example). 2.35 films were a bit of a pain, because nobody made previews in 2.35, so you'd have to switch lenses between the previews and the feature. If you're ever at a theatre and there's 10 seconds of black spliced in between the previews and the feature, look up at the projection booth and you'll see the projectionist switching lenses.
True, true, But why would you buy a fancy widescreen TV, buy a special widescreen edition, etc. to have a ever-more cropped picture? Most people would reasonably assume that anamorphically filmed movies will be shown in their full original glory on their new fancy equipment. The Princess Bride DVD cover shows a larger image for widescreen, but that is not the case when you actually play it. I say guilty as charged for such films.
Sorry, please replace Open Matte with Matted in my previous posts! The widescreens are MATTED pan-and-scan fullscreens for MGM's anamorphically filmed movies such as the Princess Bride.
Yes, I looked at the pictures. I worked in a commercial projection booth, and am trying to provide insight. Did you look at this picture from the same article?
I will repeat: Open Matte is ONLY used to crop the top and bottom of 1.33:1 UNADULTERATED 35mm. This movie was obviously filmed with an anamorphic lens (since the full image above is 1.85:1), then pan-and-scanned for the full screen version. The widescreen version should contain more picture than the full screen version. At the theatre this movie would NOT have been matted, but rather a scope lens would have been used.
MGM ripped people off for those movies that were filmed with an anamorphic lens, because they did not get a theatre experience, but rather a cropped pan-and-scan.
I will grant you, the text of the article I pointed to is incorrect, which may mislead you. He says "it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the widescreen". He should have said "it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the FULLSCREEN". And that full screen is without a doubt a pan-and-scan, because the movie was filmed and displayed with anamorphic lenses.
I must disagree. All regular movies are filmed onto 1.33:1 35mm film. But the original negative contains data for a 1.85:1 ratio (via use of a panoramic lense, e.g. "filmed in panavision"). The Open Matte method is for theatrically 'widescreening' negatives filmed in the unadulterated 1.33:1 format.
Given the DVD image shown on the cover, the original film has an actual 1.85:1 display ratio, not a matted 1.33:1. This film would have been displayed at theatres using a scope lens (looking at the negative itself it would appear squished horizontally, the scope lens reverses the panoramic filming lens's effect).
It would appear though that several of these movies were filmed in a 1.85:1 ratio, pan and scanned to 1.33;1, then further cropped at the top and bottom to get a 1.85:1 widescreen version for DVD. This is documented for The Princess Bride:
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037273p1.html
The DVD cover holds the evidence, and is completely misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't the banks use their own DNS servers to automatically check for new domains registered with "citibank" etc. in their name? That way you can detect many possible phishing schemes that try to look "authentic" even before they are necessarily active? It'd at the very least narrow the window of time for phishers to populate a DNS record, let it propagate, then release their attack...
FYI:
In TFA unveiling the NSA program (posted here a few days ago), they specifically talked about this. Qwest asked the NSA to go get a warrant for the records from the special 11-person court created in 1978 specifically for overseeing secret telecommunications monitoring. The NSA actually said (according to two sources of the article) that they didn't want to to do that is case the court disagreed with them.
Well, at least the companies aren't giving away the names and addresses of people with the phone records. This would require a warrant! The data is safely anonymous, so data mining is okay.
I'm sure no one at the NSA knows how to use the reverse lookup on superpages.com or any of those other sites...
The difference is that people decide to smoke, or decide to drive places. There is a risk you accept *by deciding to participate* in these activities. Risk vs. reward. The goal of the terrorists is to make you feel that *for no reason other than being American*, you are at risk.
An analogy (of sorts): Someone doesn't want to live in a neighbourhood (America) because there are lots of drive-by shootings. The drug-dealers accept the risk of their activity, but you might accidentally die from a stray bullet for no reason other than that you live there. Statistically you will probably die of some other cause, but you focus on the drive-bys because you aren't doing a risk-reward trade-off.
Perhaps this is a better angle: If a corporation is subject to criminal liability, "it" must be able to distinguish between right and wrong. Otherwise the corporation would be found not fit to stand trial. I'm talking about cases when the corporation itself is on trial, not its employees.
If the corporation can and should distinguish between right and wrong, it is well on its way to being moral (or immoral as the case may be).
I think you missed the point: we were talking about anthropomorphization. He said that ascribing human characteristics to an abstract entity doesn't make sense. I am saying that there is generally accepted precedence for this activity within the context of a "corporation". I didn't say corporations are moral, just that you don't have to be idiotic to anthropomorphize.
"Corporation" derives from the latin for "body", and corporations are considered "persons" in the law. A corporation can be convicted of criminal offenses, sue others for libel, etc.. So perhaps you don't have to be an "idiot" to ascribe moral characteristics to one?
The other option is to hedge your bets. Buy stock in all of the companies you dispise the most. Take your pick, tobacco, Microsoft, oil companies propping up corrupt governments, etc. etc.. If these companies fail, you can take comfort in your loses because your conscience won. If these companies continue to succeed, take your profits and give them to the groups opposing these groups, e.g. open-source foundations, green energy developers, etc..
I'd take a compromise. By default I'd allow pings to the domain the HTML page came from, but would require specific user enabling to allow other sites to be pinged.
At every major league game there is an Official Scorer. A fan could not guarantee properly recording the permanent record of a game without having access to the pressbox in which the official scorer sits. For those not really familiar with baseball, there are a lot of judgement calls on the part of the Official Scorer, such as errors, field's choices, sacrifice flys and bunts, etc. etc.. Because baseball is not a sport with continuous action, but rather many, many discreet events, it is REALLY full of stats compared to other sports. Major League Baseball pays these guys (independent contractors) $135 per game. Elias Sports Bureau is the company that collects the data from the scorers (via fax) for MLB and makes it into a database, so they obviously get paid something too.
Here are the results for the 2004 election in my riding:
:-)
In Canada we mark an X in a circle on the ballot next to name of our choice. The results show a 0.3% ballot spoilage. That's what I call KISS.
At least with a hyphen it is, but when was the last time a Unix/Linux user employed a hyphen in the MIDDLE of a word instead of the start. :-)
Yes it is.
Which is great, because in my experience gcc has a bad backend on Solaris. When I compile with cc instead of gcc, I often see a 30-50% reduction in process execution turnaround time, while using less CPU too!
Anyone who compares two apps on sparc-solaris and x86-linux should really keep this in mind...
I absolutely agree. We have a class room with 58 SunRays in it, and it is as quite as any lecture theatre...
I have met Sun kernel developers, and they run Solaris x86 as their desktops. So yeah, they've definitely been supporting it the whole time, whether the head honchos felt that way or not...
Two points that I think are largely overlooked when people are bitching about Java:
1. Yes the native code interface requires you to include a new step in your compile process (javah), and that is inconvenient. It's not rocket science though. I figured it out in an hour or less for a proprietary C API I was wrapping. It's just inconvenient enough to discourage users from importing large chunks of code outside the control of the JVM. To some this as a feature, to others not. How many Java apps are wrappers around parts of existing C/C++ apps? How many C#/.NET apps are wrappers around parts of existing C/C_++ apps?
2. We use Java in my group for one important reason: we write applets. We have an even split between Windows, UNIX and Mac users from all over the world (welcome to the wonderful world of molecular biology). Many do not even have the privileges to install software on their computers. Many others are too lazy to install the program just to try it out. It needs to be launchable and scriptable from many Web pages. It's interactive visualization that can't be done nicely via some server side solution. People may like/dislike various features of the language, but when it comes to its original market of running remote code, I don't see anybody really challenging it yet...
You have to look at the total cost of ownership though. Suppose you are a business manager in a firm, in addition to the cost of the buying machines you have to consider:
-Man hours spent unpackingly and assembling the cluster (hartdware and software installs)
-Networking infrastructure (the switches will cost you a few thousand at least for a decent cluster)
-Physical space to put the machines (no one wants this space heater next to their desk)
-Electricity cost of running the cluster and cooling the space
-Man hours spent getting patches, checking for hardware issues, etc. (i.e. sysadmin time)
-Man hours spent adding this equipment to inventory lists for the accounting department.
Plus other stuff I haven't thought of yet. These costs (especialy people time and space logistics) are often a bigger factor than the commodity equipment cost. Plus, if your cluster sucks, you have no one to blame but yourself! If your core business is selling widgets, giving a company $1 per CPU hour to process a big important job doesn't sound like such a bad idea, unless you're running it over and over again...
Either that, or our company was cheap. I was working 13 years ago :-)
We taped magnetic markers onto the film for automation of the lights, curtains, etc., (which is what I assume you mean by "attached to the print"), but had to change lenses by hand.
Please. "Anamorphic" is a type of lens, not a particular lens, therefore the statement "anamorphic lenses shoot 2.35" is incorrect. Both 1.85 and 2.35 are used commercially, though 1.85 was more frequent in my day (and hence I used it in the example). 2.35 films were a bit of a pain, because nobody made previews in 2.35, so you'd have to switch lenses between the previews and the feature. If you're ever at a theatre and there's 10 seconds of black spliced in between the previews and the feature, look up at the projection booth and you'll see the projectionist switching lenses.
True, true, But why would you buy a fancy widescreen TV, buy a special widescreen edition, etc. to have a ever-more cropped picture? Most people would reasonably assume that anamorphically filmed movies will be shown in their full original glory on their new fancy equipment. The Princess Bride DVD cover shows a larger image for widescreen, but that is not the case when you actually play it. I say guilty as charged for such films.
Sorry, please replace Open Matte with Matted in my previous posts! The widescreens are MATTED pan-and-scan fullscreens for MGM's anamorphically filmed movies such as the Princess Bride.
Yes, I looked at the pictures. I worked in a commercial projection booth, and am trying to provide insight. Did you look at this picture from the same article?
g e.jpg
http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/packa
I will repeat: Open Matte is ONLY used to crop the top and bottom of 1.33:1 UNADULTERATED 35mm. This movie was obviously filmed with an anamorphic lens (since the full image above is 1.85:1), then pan-and-scanned for the full screen version. The widescreen version should contain more picture than the full screen version. At the theatre this movie would NOT have been matted, but rather a scope lens would have been used.
MGM ripped people off for those movies that were filmed with an anamorphic lens, because they did not get a theatre experience, but rather a cropped pan-and-scan.
I will grant you, the text of the article I pointed to is incorrect, which may mislead you. He says "it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the widescreen". He should have said "it was quickly apparent that side two was an open matte version of the FULLSCREEN". And that full screen is without a doubt a pan-and-scan, because the movie was filmed and displayed with anamorphic lenses.
I must disagree. All regular movies are filmed onto 1.33:1 35mm film. But the original negative contains data for a 1.85:1 ratio (via use of a panoramic lense, e.g. "filmed in panavision"). The Open Matte method is for theatrically 'widescreening' negatives filmed in the unadulterated 1.33:1 format.
Given the DVD image shown on the cover, the original film has an actual 1.85:1 display ratio, not a matted 1.33:1. This film would have been displayed at theatres using a scope lens (looking at the negative itself it would appear squished horizontally, the scope lens reverses the panoramic filming lens's effect).
It would appear though that several of these movies were filmed in a 1.85:1 ratio, pan and scanned to 1.33;1, then further cropped at the top and bottom to get a 1.85:1 widescreen version for DVD. This is documented for The Princess Bride:
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037273p1.html
The DVD cover holds the evidence, and is completely misleading.