CAPTCHA technology is going to have a very difficult time over the next few years. Finding tasks (which can be implemented on standard computer systems and transmitted over the internet) that are trivial for humans but exceedingly difficult for computers is going to be rough.
This is especially true because the computer doesn't need a 100% success rate to effectively "break" the CAPTCHA. Heck, if the CAPTCHA gives you 3 tries before rejecting you, then a 30% success rate = fully broken.
For right now, they are still working their way through tasks that CAN be easy for computers, but no one has bothered with yet. This means that breaking the CAPTCHA is simply a matter of writing and tuning some algorithms.
I think the next step (but not the be-all/end-all of CAPTCHAs) will be a parallel approach. Give the person 4 visual or auditory CAPTCHAs, and require them to successfully solve 3 out of 4 to pass, preferably with some kind of relational puzzle regarding the answers, or at least a simple question...
EXAMPLE:
A typical obfuscated-word type CAPTCHA in 4-way parallel, the four words are KITTEN PIGLET PUPPY TOASTER, then you are asked, "Which of these is NOT a baby animal?"
Obviously this technique requires either a complete solution from the user (4/4 words correct), or requires the system to reveal the answers, which could lead to an attack based upon a dictionary-building system, which would require a massive database size (and/or a frequently updated database) to prevent.
There is room for some really innovative work in this field, as the battle will probably continue for quite a while, with ever-increasing computational speed making it more difficult.
In the end, it comes down to this:
There is nothing non-biological that every human can do but no computer can do.
You can't have everyone everywhere past patched at the exact same time, and even if it were possible, it is not a good idea.
Let's suppose that someone did come up with a good way to distribute patches to the whole world instantaneously & simultaneously.
Now let's suppose that Employee X at Microsoft accidentally put the wrong version of the latest patch into the system, and that this version of the patch fixes the targeted problem, but breaks the MS TCP/IP stack in the process.
What would happen if every single Windows box in the entire world simultaneously lost all network connectivity?
Scenario 2: Employee Y at Microsoft deliberately puts a maliciously edited patch into this instant distribution system, and now has a rootkit on every windows box in the whole world?
Somehow I think it is a good thing that some victims... I mean people get patches before other people do.
Eegads. Who modded this "informative". It is a JOKE. The ENTIRE section of this thread relating to the number 42 is a joke. Please mod parent "funny" and mod the "that's what the atomic number means" post "didn't get the joke".
Hey, this is Slashdot! You're not allowed to use interpretive thought or intelligible communication. Please go to some communication-nerd website and post your well-reasoned, level-headed thoughts there. We don't want them here!
(For those completely devoid of sarcasm detection skills, the above post may be used to calibrate your Sarcastometer--it should score 8.6).
You'd send your ftp commands and get email back (a few days later or the next week) with the uuencoded result. I actually remember doing that. I was a freshman in high school at the time. Does that mean I'm old too?
My first computer access that required a password was a VAX...
The funny thing about blackle is that so many people are using LCD monitors (or laptops with built-in LCD displays), which draw the same amount of power regardless of the colors on the screen. Perhaps LED backlighting will help alleviate this problem, but traditional LCD displays must have the backlight on any time there is a single non-black pixel on the screen.
If you really wanted to save energy, blackle would need to blank the display, and only bring it back after your search results appear. Even then, it would only be saving a minuscule amount of energy unless the entire world used it.
In order to cut enough cables to get Iran, or virtually any other non-island nation off the internet, you are going to need your anchor-dragging boats to start flying, and maybe a few back-hoes to, because they surely have some overland and/or underground fiber as well?
Did the poster and/or editor intentionally make the ambiguous statement about butterflies, knowing that it would lead to a discussion 80% about laser-wielding butterflies, with real article-related content left to battle with the usual jokes/OT garbage/etc for the remaining 20% of comments?
Absolutely. Even without putting them side by side.
Color gradients and metallics hues (both of which are very common in Mac GUIs) make differences in pretty much anything below 16.7million colors easily noticeable to anyone who pays attention to what their screen looks like.
I did more than just laugh... The Slashdot community is now a legal expert? They can't even agree on basic facts like vi is superior to emacs. How do you expect the collective Slashdot mind to come up with any cohesive answer to a complex legal question?
Personally I think I'd rather have my own personal cell line which matches my immune system exactly. The latest cloning news of adult cells shows it's quite likely in my lifetime. Given the stories about people creating/extracting stem cells from skin and/or bone marrow, it is very likely that "cloning", per se, won't even be necessary. Stem cells made from your own body will be able to create any kind of cell you need, and it will always* be a perfect match for you.
Yeah, my mistake for misquoting the website I sto^H^H^H borrowed the information from. It listed "...joules (386 billion billion megawatts) per second".
IMO, it is not the _interface_ that is cool about Time Machine, but the ease of use and the fact that it is fully automatic.
I didn't RTFA, so I don't know if this "Time Machine for Linux" implementation is as easy to use or not, but the real thing that makes Time Machine cool is that even my mother can use it.
The Ars Technica article about Leopard has lots of very cool details about Time Machine in it, including how it works. (It uses hard-links, including hard-links to directories, so in each and every time-stamped folder on the backup drive, you have a *FULL* copy of your HDD at that time (minus anything you excluded from the backups). Read that portion of the Ars Technica article if you want answers to questions about it.
The researches had a control robot that didn't interact but was otherwise the same, and the kids treated them very differently.
Half your point is valid, but the flippant comment is inaccurate and demonstrates that you didn't take the 90 seconds necessary to read the very short article.
As the father of a 2 year old and a 4 year old, I am not at all surprised that the children behaved this way. Kids in that age group have very few prejudices, and have a very down to earth perspective, so if something looks and acts vaguely like they do, they treat it with respect (in their own way).
Note that the researchers correlate treating something with some respect to treating it like a human. Many people (both children and adults) treat pets or other non-human animals in this manner.
Robiticists are apparently excited by this, but I'm going to guess (based on the fairly short linked story (yes, I RTFA), that sociologists and/or psychologists will great this with a resounding "DUH!".
(Disclaimer: I am not a roboticist, sociologist, or psychologist).
Slashdot Mirror
If this experiment was on Columbia, why is the image called "Challenger_drive.jpg"?
Challenger was many years earlier...
Dangit, wrong story...
Note to self: Pay attention to which tab you are in when you click "reply"...
If this experiment was on Columbia, why is the image called "Challenger_drive.jpg"?
Challenger was many years earlier...
CAPTCHA technology is going to have a very difficult time over the next few years. Finding tasks (which can be implemented on standard computer systems and transmitted over the internet) that are trivial for humans but exceedingly difficult for computers is going to be rough.
This is especially true because the computer doesn't need a 100% success rate to effectively "break" the CAPTCHA. Heck, if the CAPTCHA gives you 3 tries before rejecting you, then a 30% success rate = fully broken.
For right now, they are still working their way through tasks that CAN be easy for computers, but no one has bothered with yet. This means that breaking the CAPTCHA is simply a matter of writing and tuning some algorithms.
I think the next step (but not the be-all/end-all of CAPTCHAs) will be a parallel approach. Give the person 4 visual or auditory CAPTCHAs, and require them to successfully solve 3 out of 4 to pass, preferably with some kind of relational puzzle regarding the answers, or at least a simple question...
EXAMPLE:
A typical obfuscated-word type CAPTCHA in 4-way parallel, the four words are KITTEN PIGLET PUPPY TOASTER, then you are asked, "Which of these is NOT a baby animal?"
Obviously this technique requires either a complete solution from the user (4/4 words correct), or requires the system to reveal the answers, which could lead to an attack based upon a dictionary-building system, which would require a massive database size (and/or a frequently updated database) to prevent.
There is room for some really innovative work in this field, as the battle will probably continue for quite a while, with ever-increasing computational speed making it more difficult.
In the end, it comes down to this:
There is nothing non-biological that every human can do but no computer can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion
You can't have everyone everywhere past patched at the exact same time, and even if it were possible, it is not a good idea.
Let's suppose that someone did come up with a good way to distribute patches to the whole world instantaneously & simultaneously.
Now let's suppose that Employee X at Microsoft accidentally put the wrong version of the latest patch into the system, and that this version of the patch fixes the targeted problem, but breaks the MS TCP/IP stack in the process.
What would happen if every single Windows box in the entire world simultaneously lost all network connectivity?
Scenario 2: Employee Y at Microsoft deliberately puts a maliciously edited patch into this instant distribution system, and now has a rootkit on every windows box in the whole world?
Somehow I think it is a good thing that some victims... I mean people get patches before other people do.
Eegads. Who modded this "informative". It is a JOKE. The ENTIRE section of this thread relating to the number 42 is a joke. Please mod parent "funny" and mod the "that's what the atomic number means" post "didn't get the joke".
Hey, this is Slashdot! You're not allowed to use interpretive thought or intelligible communication. Please go to some communication-nerd website and post your well-reasoned, level-headed thoughts there. We don't want them here!
(For those completely devoid of sarcasm detection skills, the above post may be used to calibrate your Sarcastometer--it should score 8.6).
My first computer access that required a password was a VAX...
The funny thing about blackle is that so many people are using LCD monitors (or laptops with built-in LCD displays), which draw the same amount of power regardless of the colors on the screen. Perhaps LED backlighting will help alleviate this problem, but traditional LCD displays must have the backlight on any time there is a single non-black pixel on the screen.
If you really wanted to save energy, blackle would need to blank the display, and only bring it back after your search results appear. Even then, it would only be saving a minuscule amount of energy unless the entire world used it.
In order to cut enough cables to get Iran, or virtually any other non-island nation off the internet, you are going to need your anchor-dragging boats to start flying, and maybe a few back-hoes to, because they surely have some overland and/or underground fiber as well?
Quick Poll:
Did the poster and/or editor intentionally make the ambiguous statement about butterflies, knowing that it would lead to a discussion 80% about laser-wielding butterflies, with real article-related content left to battle with the usual jokes/OT garbage/etc for the remaining 20% of comments?
Possible Answers:
() Yes, and it's awesome.
() Yes, and it sucks.
() No, but it's awesome.
() No, and it sucks.
() CowboyNeal forced them to.
Absolutely. Even without putting them side by side.
Color gradients and metallics hues (both of which are very common in Mac GUIs) make differences in pretty much anything below 16.7million colors easily noticeable to anyone who pays attention to what their screen looks like.
Can't we acid test the ACID Test server?
:-)
If it can't hold up, maybe it needs some work...
I did more than just laugh... The Slashdot community is now a legal expert? They can't even agree on basic facts like vi is superior to emacs. How do you expect the collective Slashdot mind to come up with any cohesive answer to a complex legal question?
Just because no correlation has been proven doesn't mean the subject isn't worth discussing.
I find the idea interesting and feel it warrants further attention. If it hadn't made it to Slashdot, I might never have seen it.
No. Umm... Isn't 2x the fastest Bluray write speed available in standard consumer-grade gear right now?
They cost $400+, and I don't see any faster ones at Newegg.
*(Barring truly bizarre circumstances)
Yeah, my mistake for misquoting the website I sto^H^H^H borrowed the information from. It listed "...joules (386 billion billion megawatts) per second".
Sloppy job on my part.
Nothing is more embarrassing than doing math in public, but here's a go:
.01% chance of that), then a 25GHz Prescott would only output 1/10th the power of the Sun on a /cm^2 basis.
Surface area of the Sun:
Diamater = 1,390,000 km. 4 * pi * r ^2 = 6,069,871,166,000.839 km^2
That's roughly 6*10^12 km^2, which is 6*10^22 cm^2.
Total energy output of the Sun: "386 billion billion megawatts" (per second)
That is 386*10^24 W.
386*10^24 W / 6*10^22 cm^2 = 38600 W / 6 cm^2 = (roughly) 6433 W/cm^2
Prescott CPU = 112 mm^2 = 1.12 cm^2, energy output = 103 W (TDP @ 3.4GHz).
103 W / 1.12 cm^2 = 91.9643 W/cm^2 (@ 3.4GHz) * (25/3.4) = 676.208 W/cm^2 (@25GHz)
So, _IF_ my math is right (approx
(Note: Lameness filter sucks.)
Umm, use Boot Camp to install Windows XP? It even lets you dual-boot, you don't have to trash the Mac OS to do it.
I thought that's what "Get off my lawn!" was for...
IMO, it is not the _interface_ that is cool about Time Machine, but the ease of use and the fact that it is fully automatic.
I didn't RTFA, so I don't know if this "Time Machine for Linux" implementation is as easy to use or not, but the real thing that makes Time Machine cool is that even my mother can use it.
The Ars Technica article about Leopard has lots of very cool details about Time Machine in it, including how it works. (It uses hard-links, including hard-links to directories, so in each and every time-stamped folder on the backup drive, you have a *FULL* copy of your HDD at that time (minus anything you excluded from the backups). Read that portion of the Ars Technica article if you want answers to questions about it.
Mod parent "Didn't RFTA". (aka Overrated)
The researches had a control robot that didn't interact but was otherwise the same, and the kids treated them very differently.
Half your point is valid, but the flippant comment is inaccurate and demonstrates that you didn't take the 90 seconds necessary to read the very short article.
As the father of a 2 year old and a 4 year old, I am not at all surprised that the children behaved this way. Kids in that age group have very few prejudices, and have a very down to earth perspective, so if something looks and acts vaguely like they do, they treat it with respect (in their own way).
Note that the researchers correlate treating something with some respect to treating it like a human. Many people (both children and adults) treat pets or other non-human animals in this manner.
Robiticists are apparently excited by this, but I'm going to guess (based on the fairly short linked story (yes, I RTFA), that sociologists and/or psychologists will great this with a resounding "DUH!".
(Disclaimer: I am not a roboticist, sociologist, or psychologist).