Business processes are patentable in the US. Have been to some extent since the patent system was established, and very firmly established as allowable following some recent cases.
I can imagine some sneaky user putting a huge file in and spelling it with homoglyphs, just to annoy the admins. Added bonus if you find a way to mess with GUI tools too - eg, placing two files with the same name in different case in a folder where the admin habitually uses Windows to modify it.
Windows does the same thing, but AFAIK the only thing that happens if it doesn't get the OK response is the user gets a little popup balloon from the system tray warning them an internet connection is not available.
Because the right isn't just one ideology. The political right and religious right are often in conflict, but they are kept unified because they know they need each other to defeat their mutual enemies.
The CANary program I wrote does that. One step involves the user submitting an HTML form with a file and a password - potentially a very large file. It'd be very annoying if the user uploaded their two-gig file only to discover they mistyped the password, so the page with the form also includes a one-byte checksum. It verifies the password against that before accepting it. One byte is small enough that it'd be impractical to brute-force against: One in every two-to-the-eigth attempts would match by chance. The server verifies the password properly upon receipt of the form.
There are two reasons I can think of the maximum length limits: - Badly-written software using too-short fixed space allocations. - Reducing the number of users who come up with a super-secure long password, but forget it themselves by the next day.
xapsdogien32 > Error: Must include at least one punctuation character. xapsdogien32! > Error: Must not contain a dictionary word. xapsd_ogien32! >Error: Maximum length twelve characters. psd_ogien32! > Error: Must include an uppercase character. A1! > OK
Two reasons: Firstly, because the attacker may not need to authenticate against the server, if they have managed to hack in and get the encrypted password or found a way to determine it by MITMing a legitimate authentication. Secondly, because what you describe is itsself abuseable for DoS attacks. It allows an attacker to simply log in repeatedly with a bad password to disable an account. Even if the account can be reenabled after some effort, that's enough to cause serious disruption in some fields. Lock the competitor's salespeople out on the morning of a big conference, or use it to delay members of an opposing MMORPG team while your own people storm their territory.
Almost a good solution. But it isn't free, which is a problem. Your bank can issue two-factor authentication easily enough, as can any website of significant value. But what about, for example, a website like Tribal Wars: They have a great many users, but only a tiny per-user income. They survive by keeping the per-user cost low (There's a reason the site is mostly text). If you ask them to spend $15 to buy and mail a dongle to every user, they'll go out of business in an instant. So what do you propose? The only solution I see is to switch to third-party verification: Log in with a facebook ID, and use their token. But I think Facebook has too much power already, it'd mean the end of what little privacy is left.
I left Digg in protest after the big redesign there. The one in which they denied that they were doing any paid submissions, but suddenly half the front-page stories were glowingly positive product reviews.
The Diggpatriots scandal didn't help, as it revealed how effectively a small but well-organised group had been able to game the algorithms.
"we're pleased to announce that you can login to Slashdot in general using various social media accounts,"
Why would I want to do this? On Slashdot, of all the sites on the internet, people value their privacy. Perhaps we don't want the data-miners at Facebook to monitor our slashdot usernames, cross-correlate post times against estimated work hours and calculate our estimated slacking-off coefficient to better target advertisments? I'm entirely happy to have lots of seperate accounts - it beats 'One Account to Rule them All.'
That was my first thought too, but these operate in a completly different way. Barrage ballons were themselves the anti-air defence, carrying strong cables to ensnare low-flying attackers. These blimps are just radar platforms. Their advantage is just price: It's cheaper to keep a blimp inflated than to keep a radar-helicopter in the air.
Stepping discs and transfer booths would require revolutionary new physics. Do you expect any?
A flying car is just an engineering problem. A hard one, but still just engineering. We have helicopters - all a flying car needs to do is make that technology an order of magnitude more efficient.
It wasn't. Due to the international success of US-made entertainment media, their expressions and gestures have been spreading for some time. The finger is certainly recognized here in the UK.
No, that's not going to work. This is American politics we're dealing with.
Every special interest with lobbyists will step in with demands. The RIAA and MPAA will obviously want all pirate sites blocked, that hardly needs stating. But then the anti-gambling pressure groups will follow. The 'for the children' people will start demanding sites providing suicide advice or promoting anorexia be blocked. And as for the porn, it won't be the.xxx domain that's blocked: Before the network is even running, the very powerful social conservative faction will have put all their considerable might into making sure that all porn is blocked within the limits of technological capability. These are all things that one faction or another has been trying to have banned with mixed success for years or decades - dating back at least to the old Comstock laws that made it a criminal offense to send obscene material through the US postal service. Politically, it's very hard to ban these on privately run networks, but very easy to do so on a government-run network. The advantage politically shifts. That's before you even get into the heavy bandwidth-reduction methods that would be needed to keep costs down.
I'm not happy about the government running it censored - once the government has shown that they can keep the evil dirty porn and pirate sites blocked (Even though any script-kiddie will soon learn how to bypass this), there will be strong pressure on private ISPs to follow. Running it uncensored isn't going to fly for long politically, so it'd be better to have the government keep their hands off.
Look at the direction office is going now. Cloudy.
They won't *need* a native iOS version: A bit more work and most of it will be able to run as a web-app. It'll need extensive tweaking for each browser to manage such a complicated interface, but MS can manage that.
That's how I knew about it: Used to have one sitting in a cupboard at work. Couldn't do anything with it, as even if we'd had the parts to fix the cooling that leaked we couldn't be sure if the power supply beneath had taken any damage and might be dangerous. We hung onto it for years as a source of spares, until the last of the Power Macs were decommissioned in favor of iMacs.
Ah, you're right. It was the 'Power Mac.' I got the names confused because the G5s used a case design very similar to the current Mac Pro series, even though the computers within were a different architecture. The water cooling part was correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Business processes are patentable in the US. Have been to some extent since the patent system was established, and very firmly established as allowable following some recent cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent
I can imagine some sneaky user putting a huge file in and spelling it with homoglyphs, just to annoy the admins. Added bonus if you find a way to mess with GUI tools too - eg, placing two files with the same name in different case in a folder where the admin habitually uses Windows to modify it.
Windows does the same thing, but AFAIK the only thing that happens if it doesn't get the OK response is the user gets a little popup balloon from the system tray warning them an internet connection is not available.
Because the right isn't just one ideology. The political right and religious right are often in conflict, but they are kept unified because they know they need each other to defeat their mutual enemies.
'Daily Wail' is also acceptable.
The CANary program I wrote does that. One step involves the user submitting an HTML form with a file and a password - potentially a very large file. It'd be very annoying if the user uploaded their two-gig file only to discover they mistyped the password, so the page with the form also includes a one-byte checksum. It verifies the password against that before accepting it. One byte is small enough that it'd be impractical to brute-force against: One in every two-to-the-eigth attempts would match by chance. The server verifies the password properly upon receipt of the form.
There are two reasons I can think of the maximum length limits:
- Badly-written software using too-short fixed space allocations.
- Reducing the number of users who come up with a super-secure long password, but forget it themselves by the next day.
xapsdogien32
> Error: Must include at least one punctuation character.
xapsdogien32!
> Error: Must not contain a dictionary word.
xapsd_ogien32!
>Error: Maximum length twelve characters.
psd_ogien32!
> Error: Must include an uppercase character.
A1!
> OK
Two reasons:
Firstly, because the attacker may not need to authenticate against the server, if they have managed to hack in and get the encrypted password or found a way to determine it by MITMing a legitimate authentication.
Secondly, because what you describe is itsself abuseable for DoS attacks. It allows an attacker to simply log in repeatedly with a bad password to disable an account. Even if the account can be reenabled after some effort, that's enough to cause serious disruption in some fields. Lock the competitor's salespeople out on the morning of a big conference, or use it to delay members of an opposing MMORPG team while your own people storm their territory.
Almost a good solution. But it isn't free, which is a problem. Your bank can issue two-factor authentication easily enough, as can any website of significant value. But what about, for example, a website like Tribal Wars: They have a great many users, but only a tiny per-user income. They survive by keeping the per-user cost low (There's a reason the site is mostly text). If you ask them to spend $15 to buy and mail a dongle to every user, they'll go out of business in an instant. So what do you propose? The only solution I see is to switch to third-party verification: Log in with a facebook ID, and use their token. But I think Facebook has too much power already, it'd mean the end of what little privacy is left.
I left Digg in protest after the big redesign there. The one in which they denied that they were doing any paid submissions, but suddenly half the front-page stories were glowingly positive product reviews.
The Diggpatriots scandal didn't help, as it revealed how effectively a small but well-organised group had been able to game the algorithms.
"we're pleased to announce that you can login to Slashdot in general using various social media accounts,"
Why would I want to do this? On Slashdot, of all the sites on the internet, people value their privacy. Perhaps we don't want the data-miners at Facebook to monitor our slashdot usernames, cross-correlate post times against estimated work hours and calculate our estimated slacking-off coefficient to better target advertisments? I'm entirely happy to have lots of seperate accounts - it beats 'One Account to Rule them All.'
That was my first thought too, but these operate in a completly different way. Barrage ballons were themselves the anti-air defence, carrying strong cables to ensnare low-flying attackers. These blimps are just radar platforms. Their advantage is just price: It's cheaper to keep a blimp inflated than to keep a radar-helicopter in the air.
But is it winning?
Stepping discs and transfer booths would require revolutionary new physics. Do you expect any?
A flying car is just an engineering problem. A hard one, but still just engineering. We have helicopters - all a flying car needs to do is make that technology an order of magnitude more efficient.
I see a problem though: According to wikipedia, "Some definitions of Mersenne numbers require that the exponent n be prime."
Some? Huh? Mathematics does not deal in disputed definitions! I've never heard before that Mersenne numbers need a prime exponent.
2^4-1 = 16-1 = 15.
5 * 3 = 15.
Go read it again.
Silicon. Not silicone. Silicone is a polymer compound of silicon and oxygen, commonly used as a sealant.
It wasn't. Due to the international success of US-made entertainment media, their expressions and gestures have been spreading for some time. The finger is certainly recognized here in the UK.
No, that's not going to work. This is American politics we're dealing with.
Every special interest with lobbyists will step in with demands. The RIAA and MPAA will obviously want all pirate sites blocked, that hardly needs stating. But then the anti-gambling pressure groups will follow. The 'for the children' people will start demanding sites providing suicide advice or promoting anorexia be blocked. And as for the porn, it won't be the .xxx domain that's blocked: Before the network is even running, the very powerful social conservative faction will have put all their considerable might into making sure that all porn is blocked within the limits of technological capability. These are all things that one faction or another has been trying to have banned with mixed success for years or decades - dating back at least to the old Comstock laws that made it a criminal offense to send obscene material through the US postal service. Politically, it's very hard to ban these on privately run networks, but very easy to do so on a government-run network. The advantage politically shifts. That's before you even get into the heavy bandwidth-reduction methods that would be needed to keep costs down.
The US post office and state lotteries disagree with you.
I'm not happy about the government running it censored - once the government has shown that they can keep the evil dirty porn and pirate sites blocked (Even though any script-kiddie will soon learn how to bypass this), there will be strong pressure on private ISPs to follow. Running it uncensored isn't going to fly for long politically, so it'd be better to have the government keep their hands off.
Look at the direction office is going now. Cloudy.
They won't *need* a native iOS version: A bit more work and most of it will be able to run as a web-app. It'll need extensive tweaking for each browser to manage such a complicated interface, but MS can manage that.
That's how I knew about it: Used to have one sitting in a cupboard at work. Couldn't do anything with it, as even if we'd had the parts to fix the cooling that leaked we couldn't be sure if the power supply beneath had taken any damage and might be dangerous. We hung onto it for years as a source of spares, until the last of the Power Macs were decommissioned in favor of iMacs.
Ah, you're right. It was the 'Power Mac.' I got the names confused because the G5s used a case design very similar to the current Mac Pro series, even though the computers within were a different architecture. The water cooling part was correct.