Actually, it's not a new lookup in the google main databse for each keypress. It's a lookup in a pre-generated table of results.
It's pretty easy to spot, as the number of results shown in the preview doesn't match the number of results when you hit enter.
This makes perfect sense, since a "real" lookup would generate way too much heat. But, it's also dangerous, because people are led to believe that what they're typing would'nt yield a result. This is wrong. A simple proof of concept. Type sex. It says 0 results. But if you hit enter, you get a godzillion.
Why? Maybe they used 4b pages indexed on Google * 20K/page and times 10 (to be on the safe side) or something like that. Here (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/ho w-much-info-2003/internet.htm) is a linke someone provided in another post and you can see that the Web in 2002 was estimated to be about 167TB.
Alas, dear friend, the Internet is not the same as the web. Hence, those calculations are useless. It's not possible to estimate the size of the internet. As a matter of fact, you can't even ask the question, since it doesn't make any sense. The internet is not a "thing" that you can measure.
What they said: By exploiting all vulnerabilities discovered in SP2 by Finjan, attackers can silently and remotely take over an SP2 machine when the user simply browses a Web page"
What they meant: By exploiting all vulnerabilities discovered in SP2 by Finjan, attackers can silently and remotely take over an SP2 machine when the user simply browses a Web page with Internet Explorer
It's not the amount of water that's the problem. It's the contents.
The ice is not salt water. It's fresh water. When that fresh water melts it will decrease the salt concentration significantly. It could, in theory, slow down the Gulf stream. And this is where trouble starts.
"- Every time the movie is shown, the digitized information is retrieved via a local area network from hard disc storage. It's then decrypted, decompressed and displayed using cinema-quality electronic projectors."
Well, in the immortal words of Homer Simpson "Well Marge, have you ever heard about a little thing called the internet?". If the movie is stored on a hard disk, why send it via sattelite? Just place it on an FTP server and be done with it.
I lost interest in what this guy has to say when I read this:
"But while it might be easy to use Gmail for offsite backup, I couldn't bring myself to do that just because of the intrusive nature of Gmail. Remember this is a system that is by invitation only, which means that Google can quickly map a social network establishing who knows who. And since Gmail actually analyzes the content of your e-mail and can automatically group it by subject (how creepy is that?), Google not only knows who your friends are, but what do you talk about with those friends."
I nominate this to the prestigious "Fud of the week" award.
I don't really get this rant. First of all, there's no word identification filter in the login process. Second, if he doesn't like gmail notifier, don't use it. Thirdly, I highly doubt the changes are solely to disturb the third party tools. More likely, they're working on improvents (which shouldn't come as a surprise since it's still in beta).
This didn't make it through my bullshit filter. Oh - sorry, I mean bullshit firewall. It's like this new technology that rejects bullshit from the evil internet, so I never have to read it. Thank god, because if I'd read about this "revolutionary spam firewall" I would be forced to make a childish comment on slashdot and burn some karma.
All sites with a sufficient amount of readers will sell out eventually. Even Slashdot.
Will this reach the intended users?
on
Anti-Phishing Tools
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
People who are likely to fall for the usual phishing techniques are, unfortunately, not likely to install any tools to prevent phising. Odds are, that they never knew it existed before they fell for it.
Granted, I have a lot of pictures. Being a geek I've had a digital camera for the last 8 years, so it has to index a lot of pictures, but holy crap it's slow on my 2.4 ghz machine. And - I actually think my critisism is justified, because if this wasn't meant for people with many digital pictures, then who? If I only had a few pictures I wouldn't need an organizer tool.
Sorry guys, but this product isn't worthy of the Google brand just yet.
People in this thread keeps saying that M$ is under pressure and this is the best news since sliced bread. Well, I see this a wee bit different. Now, Mozilla is under pressure!
Once Mozilla gains sufficiently market shares, we will see exploits for that browser more and more often. And yes - there will be exploits. IE is not compromised so often just because it's poorly written, but because it's so popular that hordes of script kiddies are trying out every possible hack.
Any locals that can post some comparison punishments? I think 3-5 years in prison is way out of line, but then again - it has to match the rest of the court system. So - how does this compare to other crimes?
Guys (that's you guys across the pond). This is a governemt office. You have democracy. Your politicians will do anything for a vote. Tell your congress man that if he will make sure you vote for him again, he will do something about the hilarious patent office that's the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
This project might help an awful lot in proving that something is rotten in the state of patents.
The problem is not that ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time." . It's rather that they're not acting as jury nor a private investigator. They're not investigating wether the copyright is actually infringed or not.
6 years ago I was hired to track down websites that used my clients copyrighted pictures. It was never a problem to get the pictures removed. Of course, I could prove that my client had the copyright, but it would be a lenghty procedure. So, the ISP's took my word for it, thinking that if my claims where false, the person who uploaded the pictures would complain. I think it's the same reasoning we see today.
I think he misunderstood the word "protest". To me it seems like he just proved the telecoms point.
I don't feel sorry for him that he can't continue to send a text message every 20 seconds. If it was me he was sending his "hi, how are you" drivel to, my response would probably be something in the line of "Shut the f*ck up dude"
"Definitely a step towards the new types of tools we will need to secure hosts and networks."
I'm sorry, but I do not agree. While it makes it easy to visually detect intrusion attempts, it is of no use in the daily life of a BOFH. I have the responsibility of quite a number of machines. Most of the time, they don't require attention. So I don't pay them any. Then, once in a while, something extraordinary is happening, and I'm being alerted by an automatic monitoring system. That means I can use my day on all the important things (like hanging out on IRC etc). Visualizing network intrusion attempts is cool, but it's not a tool for me.
The french already did this - check out pages jaunes (pages jaunes is french for Yellow Pages). You can actually look up an address and see a photo of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not a new lookup in the google main databse for each keypress. It's a lookup in a pre-generated table of results.
It's pretty easy to spot, as the number of results shown in the preview doesn't match the number of results when you hit enter.
This makes perfect sense, since a "real" lookup would generate way too much heat. But, it's also dangerous, because people are led to believe that what they're typing would'nt yield a result. This is wrong. A simple proof of concept. Type sex. It says 0 results. But if you hit enter, you get a godzillion.
Why? Maybe they used 4b pages indexed on Google * 20K/page and times 10 (to be on the safe side) or something like that.o w-much-info-2003/internet.htm) is a linke someone provided in another post and you can see that the Web in 2002 was estimated to be about 167TB.
Here (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/h
Alas, dear friend, the Internet is not the same as the web. Hence, those calculations are useless. It's not possible to estimate the size of the internet. As a matter of fact, you can't even ask the question, since it doesn't make any sense. The internet is not a "thing" that you can measure.
the Internet has less than half as much data, according to experts
What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah - it's bullshit
What they said: By exploiting all vulnerabilities discovered in SP2 by Finjan, attackers can silently and remotely take over an SP2 machine when the user simply browses a Web page"
What they meant: By exploiting all vulnerabilities discovered in SP2 by Finjan, attackers can silently and remotely take over an SP2 machine when the user simply browses a Web page with Internet Explorer
The boss will never sneak in on me again, catching me watching pr0n during work hours.
It's not the amount of water that's the problem. It's the contents.
The ice is not salt water. It's fresh water. When that fresh water melts it will decrease the salt concentration significantly. It could, in theory, slow down the Gulf stream. And this is where trouble starts.
The article covers everything except:
Where is this service available?
When is it available?
How is it available?
etc...
In the immortal words of Comic Book Guy: "Worst....article...ever..."
A similar product has just released a new version as well. Check out Feather Linux
"- Every time the movie is shown, the digitized information is retrieved via a local area network from hard disc storage. It's then decrypted, decompressed and displayed using cinema-quality electronic projectors."
Well, in the immortal words of Homer Simpson "Well Marge, have you ever heard about a little thing called the internet?". If the movie is stored on a hard disk, why send it via sattelite? Just place it on an FTP server and be done with it.
I lost interest in what this guy has to say when I read this:
"But while it might be easy to use Gmail for offsite backup, I couldn't bring myself to do that just because of the intrusive nature of Gmail. Remember this is a system that is by invitation only, which means that Google can quickly map a social network establishing who knows who. And since Gmail actually analyzes the content of your e-mail and can automatically group it by subject (how creepy is that?), Google not only knows who your friends are, but what do you talk about with those friends."
I nominate this to the prestigious "Fud of the week" award.
I don't really get this rant. First of all, there's no word identification filter in the login process. Second, if he doesn't like gmail notifier, don't use it. Thirdly, I highly doubt the changes are solely to disturb the third party tools. More likely, they're working on improvents (which shouldn't come as a surprise since it's still in beta).
This didn't make it through my bullshit filter. Oh - sorry, I mean bullshit firewall. It's like this new technology that rejects bullshit from the evil internet, so I never have to read it. Thank god, because if I'd read about this "revolutionary spam firewall" I would be forced to make a childish comment on slashdot and burn some karma.
All sites with a sufficient amount of readers will sell out eventually. Even Slashdot.
People who are likely to fall for the usual phishing techniques are, unfortunately, not likely to install any tools to prevent phising. Odds are, that they never knew it existed before they fell for it.
Granted, I have a lot of pictures. Being a geek I've had a digital camera for the last 8 years, so it has to index a lot of pictures, but holy crap it's slow on my 2.4 ghz machine. And - I actually think my critisism is justified, because if this wasn't meant for people with many digital pictures, then who? If I only had a few pictures I wouldn't need an organizer tool.
Sorry guys, but this product isn't worthy of the Google brand just yet.
People in this thread keeps saying that M$ is under pressure and this is the best news since sliced bread. Well, I see this a wee bit different. Now, Mozilla is under pressure!
Once Mozilla gains sufficiently market shares, we will see exploits for that browser more and more often. And yes - there will be exploits. IE is not compromised so often just because it's poorly written, but because it's so popular that hordes of script kiddies are trying out every possible hack.
Any locals that can post some comparison punishments? I think 3-5 years in prison is way out of line, but then again - it has to match the rest of the court system. So - how does this compare to other crimes?
Guys (that's you guys across the pond). This is a governemt office. You have democracy. Your politicians will do anything for a vote. Tell your congress man that if he will make sure you vote for him again, he will do something about the hilarious patent office that's the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
This project might help an awful lot in proving that something is rotten in the state of patents.
The problem is not that ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time." . It's rather that they're not acting as jury nor a private investigator. They're not investigating wether the copyright is actually infringed or not.
6 years ago I was hired to track down websites that used my clients copyrighted pictures. It was never a problem to get the pictures removed. Of course, I could prove that my client had the copyright, but it would be a lenghty procedure. So, the ISP's took my word for it, thinking that if my claims where false, the person who uploaded the pictures would complain. I think it's the same reasoning we see today.
I think he misunderstood the word "protest". To me it seems like he just proved the telecoms point.
I don't feel sorry for him that he can't continue to send a text message every 20 seconds. If it was me he was sending his "hi, how are you" drivel to, my response would probably be something in the line of "Shut the f*ck up dude"
RIAA asked for it. They got it...
/me gives RIAA the finger
Happy now?
"Definitely a step towards the new types of tools we will need to secure hosts and networks."
I'm sorry, but I do not agree. While it makes it easy to visually detect intrusion attempts, it is of no use in the daily life of a BOFH. I have the responsibility of quite a number of machines. Most of the time, they don't require attention. So I don't pay them any. Then, once in a while, something extraordinary is happening, and I'm being alerted by an automatic monitoring system. That means I can use my day on all the important things (like hanging out on IRC etc). Visualizing network intrusion attempts is cool, but it's not a tool for me.
I for one welcome our new sucky overlords
;)
Darn - I failed. Mod me down
The french already did this - check out pages jaunes (pages jaunes is french for Yellow Pages). You can actually look up an address and see a photo of it.
I would kill for a decent browser on PocketPC(2002)
;)
Amen! Pocket IE 2002 sucks in so many ways. If you find one, please let the world know (or at least me