Re:The problem is service provider sloppyness
on
Real-Time Keyloggers
·
· Score: 1
Bank of America used to have a good system for authenticating their site. At login, you input your ID, and the B of A site gave you back a photo of your own choosing to tell you that you were on the real Bank of America site. Only then did you input your password.
My credit union used this for a while, but stopped recently (or maybe not! *eerie music*). I don't see how it helps me verify that I'm really connecting to their site, though, since a middleman site can just as easily act as a proxy to the real site, relaying my account number to it and relaying the verification image back to its fake page, making me think it's the real page. Then when I enter my password, I'm screwed.
I thought Net Neutrality was to prevent ISPs from filtering and controlling content, not protocols and speeds?
From the summary: "[...] within the HTTP realm some Web sites and services that use lots of upstream bandwidth are capped as well". This is targeting specific sites, not protocols.
ISPs are no different. They purchase bandwidth based on a model of "reasonable" network usage and how many subscribers they have.
Read the summary again: they aren't throttling all traffic for a given protocol; they're throttling traffic based on what site it's to. This nicely sets the stage for the next phase: charge said sites to un-throttle traffic. Fortunately said sites can play the game too and put up a special page to users connecting from this ISP explaining that the site is slow because the ISP is making it so, and that they can get better service by switching ISPs.
I'm pretty sure I read about this exact thing years ago. Weren't there issues with the tongue being "low resolution" and interfering with eating and talking?
I guess now parents of formerly-blind kids will be scolding them for "looking with their mouths full".
Yes, even though casual users will now be left alone, they will still have to pay greatly-inflated prices for the drugs. The only thing this will eliminate is resources wasted arresting these people who pose no threat. It won't eliminate all the other problems caused by prohibition of possessing large quantities and selling it. No matter what the substance, if it's something people desire and you make it illegal to possess/sell, you'll get black market availability and all the problems that come with the black market. Just imagine if something similar were done for all products containing sweeteners...
For fook sake...if someone is born with a vagina and they haven't taken drugs or gotten surgery to get there, they are a woman. To try to weed someone out of the athletic process because God (or whatever you believe in) has given them "a little extra" is absurd.
But the point of dividing people based on sex in sports is not for reproductive reasons, it's for physical ability reasons. Thus having a vagina is not relevant to physical ability (even though for most people, it is an accurate predictor of one's general physical performance range). Since sports are based on physical ability, the distinction would best be based on genes which control it and are usually correlated with sex. If the distinction seems somewhat absurd, that's probably because it is. The idea is to eliminate people who will very likely beat you every time, but not eliminate people who might not, even though in most cases it's due to the genes each of you were born with.
To expand on what you said, if she's banned or pulled back because of her genetic condition, then you can probably expect your gold medal in the mail any day now. Treating people differently for their genetics has a very bad history so far, and sets a bad precedent for the future.
Most sports already exclude people based on genes. For example, a male baseball team excludes any organism that doesn't have human male genes. This means human females, male and female equines, canines, felines, etc.
Basically, rather than having a flat wall with an exit that everyone bottlenecks up at, the pole acts as a "funnel wall" forcing people to line up earlier and more quickly.
A way of thinking of this is that the more gradual reduction in flow "width" allows more opportunities to find an optimal place to merge, rather than being forced to merge at the end.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan. A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan. This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology. Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic). ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
So once a woman enters menopause and cannot create any more viable ova, she is not a female anymore? If a man has a vasectomy, he's not a male anymore, but wait, if it's reversed, he's male again? Or if an organism appears male/female in every respect, but you later find that it was sterile, it wasn't a male/female after all?
The point is that there isn't a single dimension for measuring gender. In science, your definition may be most appropriate, since the most relevant aspect is the ability to reproduce, and which role the organism plays. In the case of the olympics, they should choose a measure that fits in with their somewhat arbitrary system of two different groups of people that cannot compete with each other (men and women). They'll have to more carefully consider why they have those groupings. Sooner or later they'll encounter someone who just does not fit in either category, and have to make a tough decision. This could be one.
What, these guys are giving customers useful data, without the airlines' consent? Take them down! It's obviously a copyright violation or something, because it's not making the airlines more money.
By your analysis, the largest single group contributing to Linux is actually the "people working for a company" group, with 81.8%.
I'd say the largest group is that of people, accounting for 99.9% (the other 0.1% is super-intelligent AIs that will take over the world, but it's insignificant).
I never get tired of listening to the silly reasons people come up with when the *actual* reason is
It's obviously "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". By keeping the schedule information on their ad-laden web page, they clearly promote progress...
These guys put Comcast etc. to shame. They have managed to both raise the price AND lower the bandwidth to 0kbps, and people are voluntarily switching! And they are even net neutral by not discriminating based on the source; they block everything...
I found a better description of how it essentially does just-in-time compilation, treating even the pointer to tbe file, buffer etc. as constants, thus resulting in different compiled code for each file opened.
How is that a security flaw with fprintf? It'd be sort of like saying that the insecurity of system(some_string_from_user) is due to a security flaw in system(), rather than a poor coding.
No, the idea was to shorten URLs that are too long to properly represent without corruption in things like email (though I always thought you just put around the URL and a parser would later properly reconstruct a multi-line URL). Use in HTML is absolutely stupid, as a long URL can be linked with no problem in HTML.
Yes, Synthesis is very cool. Apparently file buffers were handled with on-the-fly code with the buffer pointer embedded within it, and without explicit checks, instead relying on an unmapped page just past the end and a page fault handler to refill the buffer (at least that's how I remember the author explaining it to me). I believe the author is also the one who original wrote the Superoptimizer.
So in other words you still have a computer running, just not your main computer.
Don't worry, they're working on a solution which allows the network computer to go to sleep as well without disrupting the network connection. Perhaps they could add a second network computer that allows the first to power down...
Violating one of those freedom licenses is about re-establishing proper restrictions and lockdowns on the user. Why whould good-guy companies who do this be treated as criminals? They are keeping society functioning, since with liberty it would go to hell very quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
My credit union used this for a while, but stopped recently (or maybe not! *eerie music*). I don't see how it helps me verify that I'm really connecting to their site, though, since a middleman site can just as easily act as a proxy to the real site, relaying my account number to it and relaying the verification image back to its fake page, making me think it's the real page. Then when I enter my password, I'm screwed.
From the summary: "[...] within the HTTP realm some Web sites and services that use lots of upstream bandwidth are capped as well". This is targeting specific sites, not protocols.
Read the summary again: they aren't throttling all traffic for a given protocol; they're throttling traffic based on what site it's to. This nicely sets the stage for the next phase: charge said sites to un-throttle traffic. Fortunately said sites can play the game too and put up a special page to users connecting from this ISP explaining that the site is slow because the ISP is making it so, and that they can get better service by switching ISPs.
I guess now parents of formerly-blind kids will be scolding them for "looking with their mouths full".
Yes, even though casual users will now be left alone, they will still have to pay greatly-inflated prices for the drugs. The only thing this will eliminate is resources wasted arresting these people who pose no threat. It won't eliminate all the other problems caused by prohibition of possessing large quantities and selling it. No matter what the substance, if it's something people desire and you make it illegal to possess/sell, you'll get black market availability and all the problems that come with the black market. Just imagine if something similar were done for all products containing sweeteners...
What kind of site are you looking for? Flat, hilly, trees maybe? What about a stream? Any preference on the lot shape? Also, what's your budget?
But the point of dividing people based on sex in sports is not for reproductive reasons, it's for physical ability reasons. Thus having a vagina is not relevant to physical ability (even though for most people, it is an accurate predictor of one's general physical performance range). Since sports are based on physical ability, the distinction would best be based on genes which control it and are usually correlated with sex. If the distinction seems somewhat absurd, that's probably because it is. The idea is to eliminate people who will very likely beat you every time, but not eliminate people who might not, even though in most cases it's due to the genes each of you were born with.
Most sports already exclude people based on genes. For example, a male baseball team excludes any organism that doesn't have human male genes. This means human females, male and female equines, canines, felines, etc.
A way of thinking of this is that the more gradual reduction in flow "width" allows more opportunities to find an optimal place to merge, rather than being forced to merge at the end.
So once a woman enters menopause and cannot create any more viable ova, she is not a female anymore? If a man has a vasectomy, he's not a male anymore, but wait, if it's reversed, he's male again? Or if an organism appears male/female in every respect, but you later find that it was sterile, it wasn't a male/female after all?
The point is that there isn't a single dimension for measuring gender. In science, your definition may be most appropriate, since the most relevant aspect is the ability to reproduce, and which role the organism plays. In the case of the olympics, they should choose a measure that fits in with their somewhat arbitrary system of two different groups of people that cannot compete with each other (men and women). They'll have to more carefully consider why they have those groupings. Sooner or later they'll encounter someone who just does not fit in either category, and have to make a tough decision. This could be one.
What, these guys are giving customers useful data, without the airlines' consent? Take them down! It's obviously a copyright violation or something, because it's not making the airlines more money.
I'd say the largest group is that of people, accounting for 99.9% (the other 0.1% is super-intelligent AIs that will take over the world, but it's insignificant).
It's obviously "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". By keeping the schedule information on their ad-laden web page, they clearly promote progress...
Argh, so that's the reason mine never work. Any recommendations on the brand of expensive-looking paper to use? Thanks.
And also some tubes are filled with inert gasses, rather than having a true vacuum.
These guys put Comcast etc. to shame. They have managed to both raise the price AND lower the bandwidth to 0kbps, and people are voluntarily switching! And they are even net neutral by not discriminating based on the source; they block everything...
Given that the most-used features of cellphones are things other than talking on the phone (presumably included in the "Other 9%"), I predict that they will become like this Nintendo controller of the future.
I found a better description of how it essentially does just-in-time compilation, treating even the pointer to the file, buffer etc. as constants, thus resulting in different compiled code for each file opened.
(argh, link was borked in the previous post)
I found a better description of how it essentially does just-in-time compilation, treating even the pointer to tbe file, buffer etc. as constants, thus resulting in different compiled code for each file opened.
How is that a security flaw with fprintf? It'd be sort of like saying that the insecurity of system(some_string_from_user) is due to a security flaw in system(), rather than a poor coding.
No, the idea was to shorten URLs that are too long to properly represent without corruption in things like email (though I always thought you just put around the URL and a parser would later properly reconstruct a multi-line URL). Use in HTML is absolutely stupid, as a long URL can be linked with no problem in HTML.
Yes, Synthesis is very cool. Apparently file buffers were handled with on-the-fly code with the buffer pointer embedded within it, and without explicit checks, instead relying on an unmapped page just past the end and a page fault handler to refill the buffer (at least that's how I remember the author explaining it to me). I believe the author is also the one who original wrote the Superoptimizer.
Don't worry, they're working on a solution which allows the network computer to go to sleep as well without disrupting the network connection. Perhaps they could add a second network computer that allows the first to power down...
fprintf, not sprintf. Or is fprintf insecure in some way I don't know about?
Violating one of those freedom licenses is about re-establishing proper restrictions and lockdowns on the user. Why whould good-guy companies who do this be treated as criminals? They are keeping society functioning, since with liberty it would go to hell very quickly.