You can either get the ad revenue from YouTube or nothing from when people go back to filesharing. Because 50% is already about 49% more than I'd have expected to pay for something as useless as the audio pollution you sell as music.
Slaughtering the goose laying the golden eggs may well result in having nothing at all.
All depends on the possible punishment. Since that's usually little more than a slap on the wrist and the requirement to take the test again, where's the risk?
What would you gain by demonstrating a hash collision in SHA-1? You'd present it at Black Hat. Big whoop. A bunch of security researchers got to say "Finally! Someone proved that we're right!" and nobody else gave even half a shit about it.
Net result? Probably close to zero, more probably negative when you count how much time you had to invest to finally find a ITW usable hash collision.
We are talking about something that would IMMEDIATELY make you rich beyond what normal people (i.e. any security researcher) could dream of.
And you think it would be different without net neutrality? Without, you get that on top of corporations censoring and shaping to their benefit.
If anything, we need true net neutrality. All and any content must be delivered by those that transport it without any kind of discrimination. Only the endpoints may decide to disallow any kind of content to stem from them or be delivered to them.
Just because A is bad doesn't mean B is better. What you say is the equivalent of "You don't like Cholera? Well, you sure must hate it that the last Pest wave went past our town!"
People of mediocre intellect study hard and ace tests. People of superior intellect learn early that it usually means less effort to find out how to cheat without getting caught.
What does "being smart" really mean? Know everything? Or know how to game the system?
Nature would demand the second. Least input for optimal output. And that's where cheating comes into play. It's easier and requires less effort to cheat than to learn the bullshit you know you won't ever need again.
Along those lines the law that applies to "illegal" activities comes into play. Anyone pondering an activity that is somehow disallowed will be done by the following law: G > E + C * P
With G being the gain of the illegal activity, E the expended effort to pull it off, C the chance of being caught and P the punishment incurred if caught. And as long as G is greater than the other side, it is actually smarter to ignore the rules.
Actually it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Why? Because it would be INCREDIBLY profitable if you could do it. You think there aren't already thousands of highly trained and motivated security gurus working day and night trying to crack that? If you can do that, all of the bitcoins in the world could be yours!
This is how you find a secure technology for your application. Find one where cracking it would be insanely profitable and such a hack would instantly be noticed. If it's still secure after a few years, it probably is.
Who cares about the person's skin color? I call people assholes all the time despite other people having assholes as well, it's not an exclusive thing.
Like I said, it depends on what he is applying for. As a penetration tester? Probably not the most valuable certificate he could have (there's plenty of good material from SANS for that venue). As a CISO? Probably more suitable.
The problem is that you want to have people click on something and buy it. That's not going to work. Ever. For more than one reason. And it all comes down to feelings.
First and foremost, when I go to a page, I go there for a reason. To read something, to watch a movie, what I certainly did NOT go to the page for was your ad. Even if it was the most topical ad, even if it advertised something that would solve all my life problems, it still is NOT what I wanted to get at that very moment. The worst thing you can do now is force me to see your ad before I can get to what I wanted to see. Because that loads your product with negative emotion. You and your product are between me and what I want to have.
Instead, what you should do is make me feel like you made what I'm looking at possible. The whole "sponsored by" and "brought to you by" ad line works wonders. We get a good feeling about you and your product if we feel like you're the one that gives us what we want and maybe even love. It needn't even to have anything to do with your product. You could be making car windshield wipers, if that's what allowed me to find the solution to a coding problem I had, I feel good about your wipers and next time I need some and they're offered, I'll probably even prefer to buy them because subconsciously they are connected with solving a problem I had.
This way advertising can work.
Being obnoxious makes us feel bad about your product. Yes, we will more likely remember it. But it will be remembered as the product that stood between us and the content we wanted to see.
This cannot happen of course, never. It's a totally benign and secure way to pay for your content, please implement it and don't listen to that ridiculous AC with his nonsensical ideas.
You will not see many Linux user in a webserver statistics. Why? Because you obviously will only get a sample of desktop computers. My expectation would be that the Windows demographic will also show a VERY tiny amount of Windows Servers hitting your webpage, unless you offer some Windows Server components. Because few people are stupid enough to browse online from their servers.
Linux is still (and probably will be forever) a system that you'd rather use on your server than your desktop. I'd even expect the majority of Linux installations around the world to not even have a GUI installed.
In other words, if you ask around who's running Linux or Windows on their servers here, you'd probably get a single digit percentage result for Windows. And I'd guess it might even be in the single digits again if you ask who's running Linux as their main desktop system.
Slashdot Mirror
Because stupid should not breed more than it already does. It's better if it gets weeded out whenever possible.
You can either get the ad revenue from YouTube or nothing from when people go back to filesharing. Because 50% is already about 49% more than I'd have expected to pay for something as useless as the audio pollution you sell as music.
Slaughtering the goose laying the golden eggs may well result in having nothing at all.
Actually, you should.
But please blow yourself..... I mean, build it in a quiet little shack outside of harm's way.
Finally one supplier cares about what the demand side is actually demanding and of course those damn commies have to put a stop to it!
Stop interfering with free trade, dammit!
Really?
I didn't care too much about it until now, but it suddenly got interesting...
Your problem isn't net neutrality but your politicians. Throw them away and start anew.
Anyone still using SHA-1 for signing? Get out of the system while you can!
All depends on the possible punishment. Since that's usually little more than a slap on the wrist and the requirement to take the test again, where's the risk?
If they had it, they could easily use it. The fact that they're not using it kinda points towards them not having it.
What would you gain by demonstrating a hash collision in SHA-1? You'd present it at Black Hat. Big whoop. A bunch of security researchers got to say "Finally! Someone proved that we're right!" and nobody else gave even half a shit about it.
Net result? Probably close to zero, more probably negative when you count how much time you had to invest to finally find a ITW usable hash collision.
We are talking about something that would IMMEDIATELY make you rich beyond what normal people (i.e. any security researcher) could dream of.
You might see the difference in motivation here.
And you think it would be different without net neutrality? Without, you get that on top of corporations censoring and shaping to their benefit.
If anything, we need true net neutrality. All and any content must be delivered by those that transport it without any kind of discrimination. Only the endpoints may decide to disallow any kind of content to stem from them or be delivered to them.
Just because A is bad doesn't mean B is better. What you say is the equivalent of "You don't like Cholera? Well, you sure must hate it that the last Pest wave went past our town!"
Bingo.
People of mediocre intellect study hard and ace tests.
People of superior intellect learn early that it usually means less effort to find out how to cheat without getting caught.
Work or ethic. Pick one.
So? You did what was required to be done to fulfill the requirements for satisfactory results. You were well prepared for your working life.
If they were smart they'd have spent 2-3 hours a day finding out how to cheat and not getting caught. Less effort, more gain.
Pretty much this.
What does "being smart" really mean? Know everything? Or know how to game the system?
Nature would demand the second. Least input for optimal output. And that's where cheating comes into play. It's easier and requires less effort to cheat than to learn the bullshit you know you won't ever need again.
Along those lines the law that applies to "illegal" activities comes into play. Anyone pondering an activity that is somehow disallowed will be done by the following law: G > E + C * P
With G being the gain of the illegal activity, E the expended effort to pull it off, C the chance of being caught and P the punishment incurred if caught. And as long as G is greater than the other side, it is actually smarter to ignore the rules.
Actually it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Why? Because it would be INCREDIBLY profitable if you could do it. You think there aren't already thousands of highly trained and motivated security gurus working day and night trying to crack that? If you can do that, all of the bitcoins in the world could be yours!
This is how you find a secure technology for your application. Find one where cracking it would be insanely profitable and such a hack would instantly be noticed. If it's still secure after a few years, it probably is.
Hmm... last time I checked the side of The Party pushing for national ID was the democrats and the republican side was strictly opposing it.
Did something change since the prez election?
Who cares about the person's skin color? I call people assholes all the time despite other people having assholes as well, it's not an exclusive thing.
Like I said, it depends on what he is applying for. As a penetration tester? Probably not the most valuable certificate he could have (there's plenty of good material from SANS for that venue). As a CISO? Probably more suitable.
The problem is that you want to have people click on something and buy it. That's not going to work. Ever. For more than one reason. And it all comes down to feelings.
First and foremost, when I go to a page, I go there for a reason. To read something, to watch a movie, what I certainly did NOT go to the page for was your ad. Even if it was the most topical ad, even if it advertised something that would solve all my life problems, it still is NOT what I wanted to get at that very moment. The worst thing you can do now is force me to see your ad before I can get to what I wanted to see. Because that loads your product with negative emotion. You and your product are between me and what I want to have.
Instead, what you should do is make me feel like you made what I'm looking at possible. The whole "sponsored by" and "brought to you by" ad line works wonders. We get a good feeling about you and your product if we feel like you're the one that gives us what we want and maybe even love. It needn't even to have anything to do with your product. You could be making car windshield wipers, if that's what allowed me to find the solution to a coding problem I had, I feel good about your wipers and next time I need some and they're offered, I'll probably even prefer to buy them because subconsciously they are connected with solving a problem I had.
This way advertising can work.
Being obnoxious makes us feel bad about your product. Yes, we will more likely remember it. But it will be remembered as the product that stood between us and the content we wanted to see.
Hush! Will you please be quiet!
This cannot happen of course, never. It's a totally benign and secure way to pay for your content, please implement it and don't listen to that ridiculous AC with his nonsensical ideas.
So Lynx is an intelligent browser that can't display crap?
You will not see many Linux user in a webserver statistics. Why? Because you obviously will only get a sample of desktop computers. My expectation would be that the Windows demographic will also show a VERY tiny amount of Windows Servers hitting your webpage, unless you offer some Windows Server components. Because few people are stupid enough to browse online from their servers.
Linux is still (and probably will be forever) a system that you'd rather use on your server than your desktop. I'd even expect the majority of Linux installations around the world to not even have a GUI installed.
In other words, if you ask around who's running Linux or Windows on their servers here, you'd probably get a single digit percentage result for Windows. And I'd guess it might even be in the single digits again if you ask who's running Linux as their main desktop system.