How much "commenting" is required? If I upload 2 minutes of Jon Stewart with "OMG, this RULZ", is that enough? What if I say, "This was one of the funniest, and saddest, clips of the last several months"?
What I'm driving at here is that the article you link to (as all articles about fair use) reads more like how to prepare for a jury trial than it does about how to obey the law.
What exactly do you imagine is going to happen? Google, by their own terms of service, can't sell your personal data to anyone else. And if they start doing stupid things with it, I'll stop using their services and that'll be that.
Yes, but how do those users get onto your whitelist? They send you a "message" (contact request)? And this message allows them to add some content like "Hey, this is Bob from work"?
So you see "contact requests" for "come see my hot pics", etc.
I don't think it's backwards at all. If someone wins, there won't be *any* money next year. The prize money could increase until it's enough to get it done. Competition ensures that it doesn't just keep rising.
In fact, I'd say this sounds like a better approach than "submit your proposal and we'll give you a pile of money" for things that are experimental and preliminary like this.
When you say that the usage of getLocation() in getDistanceFrom(..) is "good OO style", do you mean that you'd write the same code in other OO languages, like C++? If so, isn't this a complaint about OO style that has nothing to do with Java? The problems you list here with the allocation of new objects are as relevant to C++ as they are to Java.
The author didn't scan for vulnerabilities, the author scanned for installed software. The system didn't reply with information about its vulnerability, it simply replied with information about itself (which, in these cases, is the firewall info only). The system may not have intended even to reply with this, but as with some simple webserver identification programs, behavior itself can be used to identify the software in lieu of an actual "ISS v3.5" string.
The author may have scanned many more machines than the original 110 that ended up on the hitlist. Those machines had different software installed. I'm proposing that he compiled a database of IP addresses and installed software. This was done long before the announcement of any vulnerability.
The author then could wait for a vulnerability to be published, add the delivery method to the pre-existing worm behavior, and extract from the pre-existing database a list of hits for that exploit.
That list in this case may have even had more than 110 entries. A crude identification process could easily lead to false positives. Those machines would not have been comprimised, and may not even record the attack.
Again, the attacker could have done "inventory" scans long before writing the final exploit. It's not like casing a single bank, it's more like making a list of banks and their vault type, on the hope that someone will identify a way into one of those types of vaults. When the vault weakness is identified, you don't have to do any more work to identify your targets.
Does that make more sense? Am I missing something here?
Even presuming that the author learned of the vulnerability at its public release, what would prevent him from scanning networks and comprising a list of installed (but uncompromised) software?
Everything short of the actual exploit could be ready to go, and a database of products and installation locations. Once an exploit is announced for a scanned product, the author needs to only code the exploit, load that product's list of installations, and fire.
I'd say that Archaeology definitely makes predictions. If you excavate an area in the plains and find materials that are only available in the mountains, then you predict that there will be evidence of either pilgramages or trade routes.
If you find artifacts of another culture mixed in with the one you're excavating, you predict that there is contact. If they're accompanied by, say, amputated ears and fingers, you can *theorize* that the two groups fought. That theory predicts the existance of battle areas between the two cultures, where weapons of each should be found. That prediction could be false: the other 'culture' could be a priest caste, and the amputated parts are actually from the 'owners', amputated in a ritual and accompanied with 'holy artifacts' from the priests.
That second interpretation could be supported with evidence of the two groups living closely. The discovery of altars with evidence of bloodshed, and perhaps even paintings of the amputation act would lend even more support to that theory over the 'war trophy' theory.
For the record, I'm not an archaeologist, these are just things I've come up with off the top of my head.
If you're talking about education and science rather than general belief systems, the point here is that "intelligent design" makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. This makes it not science. It may still be true (and I think that it is), but it isn't science.
As a followup, the integration can be very smooth between the different parts. In addition to formal "meeting requests", I believe Google can use their prodigious NL parsing tech to interpret "Tomorrow at 3" or "every wednesday" and give the user the option of updating their calendar.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it'd be more of a deterrent if your avatar was just rendered with fewer polygons.
-Zipwow
"Please enjoy our newly renovated walkway, now with extra cushioning for your steps!"
It's all about degree of added difficulty, and marketing.
-Zipwow
Yeah, this story about goatse on national tv via youtube was a hoax, but I wonder if the next one will be.
I think the point is that if you're an online casino, you're already making money by taking a "rake" of each poker hand (nobody plays the house).
It would be very tempting to add bots to the game in order to add a house cut. And who would know?
-Zipwow
How much "commenting" is required? If I upload 2 minutes of Jon Stewart with "OMG, this RULZ", is that enough? What if I say, "This was one of the funniest, and saddest, clips of the last several months"?
What I'm driving at here is that the article you link to (as all articles about fair use) reads more like how to prepare for a jury trial than it does about how to obey the law.
-Zipwow
Can you cite that somewhere? I think it's a great point, and had heard the same thing, but never from an authoritative source.
-Zipwow
My Wii has a browser and a TV connection. The remote sits next to my TV remote.
What was the problem again?
Are you sure that this property is also true of the theorized egyptian concrete?
Even if it is, it could also be that the egyptians perceived natural stones as stronger, even if that is not the case.
What exactly do you imagine is going to happen? Google, by their own terms of service, can't sell your personal data to anyone else. And if they start doing stupid things with it, I'll stop using their services and that'll be that.
I think I have a better piece of prognostication for corporate networks:
The google business appliance.
Plug it in, and get:
intranet searching
email
instant messaging
calendar
office applications (Wrightly, others)
All delivered via your friendly local web-browser.
Google is like skynet with better PR.
-Zipwow
So, the answer is "no, there isn't a good reason"?
I know a lot of companies have this "policy", but I think it's pretty stupid, unless you're also blocking email and webpage access too.
Why would you want to do this? What is it that's dangerous about IM that doesn't also apply to email?
Yes, but how do those users get onto your whitelist? They send you a "message" (contact request)? And this message allows them to add some content like "Hey, this is Bob from work"?
So you see "contact requests" for "come see my hot pics", etc.
-Zipwow
I don't think it's backwards at all. If someone wins, there won't be *any* money next year. The prize money could increase until it's enough to get it done. Competition ensures that it doesn't just keep rising.
In fact, I'd say this sounds like a better approach than "submit your proposal and we'll give you a pile of money" for things that are experimental and preliminary like this.
Oops, yes you do:
"This is no longer the case for object-oriented programming in general, and it is possibly worst correlated in Java."
I don't see where Java is a worse offender than anywhere else, though.
When you say that the usage of getLocation() in getDistanceFrom(..) is "good OO style", do you mean that you'd write the same code in other OO languages, like C++? If so, isn't this a complaint about OO style that has nothing to do with Java? The problems you list here with the allocation of new objects are as relevant to C++ as they are to Java.
Somebody's got to start the speculation:
How about:
$$$$$
or maybe:
$DisturbanceInTheForce
Or even:
[Unimatrix01]
Have you looked recently? There seems to be a scale bar in the google maps that I'm looking at.
Or does the one in MSVE do something else that you're expecting in google maps?
-Zipwow
> *cough* If a lower uid is all you need to be right.. }=)
Quiet you young whippersnapper! And get off my lawn!
I think you've missed my point.
The author didn't scan for vulnerabilities, the author scanned for installed software. The system didn't reply with information about its vulnerability, it simply replied with information about itself (which, in these cases, is the firewall info only). The system may not have intended even to reply with this, but as with some simple webserver identification programs, behavior itself can be used to identify the software in lieu of an actual "ISS v3.5" string.
The author may have scanned many more machines than the original 110 that ended up on the hitlist. Those machines had different software installed. I'm proposing that he compiled a database of IP addresses and installed software. This was done long before the announcement of any vulnerability.
The author then could wait for a vulnerability to be published, add the delivery method to the pre-existing worm behavior, and extract from the pre-existing database a list of hits for that exploit.
That list in this case may have even had more than 110 entries. A crude identification process could easily lead to false positives. Those machines would not have been comprimised, and may not even record the attack.
Again, the attacker could have done "inventory" scans long before writing the final exploit. It's not like casing a single bank, it's more like making a list of banks and their vault type, on the hope that someone will identify a way into one of those types of vaults. When the vault weakness is identified, you don't have to do any more work to identify your targets.
Does that make more sense? Am I missing something here?
-Zipwow
Why couldn't he have scanned for it in advance?
Even presuming that the author learned of the vulnerability at its public release, what would prevent him from scanning networks and comprising a list of installed (but uncompromised) software?
Everything short of the actual exploit could be ready to go, and a database of products and installation locations. Once an exploit is announced for a scanned product, the author needs to only code the exploit, load that product's list of installations, and fire.
-Zipwow
I'd say that Archaeology definitely makes predictions. If you excavate an area in the plains and find materials that are only available in the mountains, then you predict that there will be evidence of either pilgramages or trade routes.
If you find artifacts of another culture mixed in with the one you're excavating, you predict that there is contact. If they're accompanied by, say, amputated ears and fingers, you can *theorize* that the two groups fought. That theory predicts the existance of battle areas between the two cultures, where weapons of each should be found. That prediction could be false: the other 'culture' could be a priest caste, and the amputated parts are actually from the 'owners', amputated in a ritual and accompanied with 'holy artifacts' from the priests.
That second interpretation could be supported with evidence of the two groups living closely. The discovery of altars with evidence of bloodshed, and perhaps even paintings of the amputation act would lend even more support to that theory over the 'war trophy' theory.
For the record, I'm not an archaeologist, these are just things I've come up with off the top of my head.
-Zipwow
If you're talking about education and science rather than general belief systems, the point here is that "intelligent design" makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. This makes it not science. It may still be true (and I think that it is), but it isn't science.
As a followup, the integration can be very smooth between the different parts. In addition to formal "meeting requests", I believe Google can use their prodigious NL parsing tech to interpret "Tomorrow at 3" or "every wednesday" and give the user the option of updating their calendar.
I know I already want it.
-Zipwow