I have an All-Your-Base-derived signature, that's enough slashdot subculture for me:-) If I wanted to score/. points, I'd make some kind of half-assed Soviet Russia comment (In Soviet Russia, YOU make BEVERAGE tipsy! I.S.R., bottle cap look down on YOU! etc.), and link it to Goatse..ahem... goat.cexx.
Hey now, that's offensive to us true morons out here who would never know that you could see the underside of a cap by looking at it from underneath. How insensitive!
In all seriousness though, let's see... painfully obvious process, described in entirely too much detail...anyone smell a frivolous patent coming? If I were PepsiCo, I'd be at the patent office right now making sure contest-cheats were forced to resort to substantially more inconvenient methods such as shining a very bright light, or clever thermal imaging.
Many anti-virus companies actually go out of their way to name a virus something other than the author intended. The logic is that they don't want to give the author fame/recognition for their work.
I remember trying to install one of the "recent" Windows-es (I think either 98 or ME), for testing purposes, on an old P133. During the install process, it actually popped up a dialogue stating that your processor must be 150MHz or more, and refused to install.
(How are THG getting their specs for 486es and such, with these arbitrary limitations in place? Is it necessary to modify/hack the Windows installer?)
they've got to be doing it in one of these "run" keys
Alas, at one time this was true. Even that became passe for malware makers, so they've been stuffing them pretty much anywhere an executable can be executed from, even semi-undocumented ones. These days you can also expect them in your win.ini/system.ini (load= or run= lines), taking over filename extensions (e.g. clicking on a text file loads the spyware, which then loads notepad.exe), replacing your shell= lines (e.g. shell=spyware.exe/run explorer.exe), less well-documented Registry keys such as "ShellServiceObjectDelayLoad" (try typing that 3 times really fast!), etc.
The equally-crafty non-EXE pests might also show up in IE's Browser Helper Object list, or insert themselves into your Winsock stack as Layered Service Providers. (These generate some, er, "fun" when you go to remove them.)
If the user has the ability to bypass the firewall, a program can do so just as easily and there is no way in Windows to differentiate between messages coming from keyboard/mouse and messages coming from other applications.
Amen. One of the semi-recent spyware apps (the name escapes me; there are just so MANY of them) is designed to circumvent Zone Alarm, one of the most popular (and free, in many cases) personal firewalls for Windows. When sending its outgoing HTTP request, it also snoops new windows as they appear. The firewall software, seeing the outgoing connection, pops up a window asking "Is it OK for this program to access the internet?", and the spyware helpfully clicks "yes" for them. This happens fast enough that most users don't know that a window appeared at all.
This summer I came into possession of a big old pair of 15" Scotts whose foam had substantially rotted away. While I had seen refoam kits on the internet, I always though to myself, "could that really work?", and kind of doubted it. Since I was unemployed and brokish at the time, I didn't want to blow cash on an unproven technology (internet refoam kits) and had entirely too much free time. So I decided I would spend an afternoon performing a "ghetto refoam" with silicon sealant and dryer sheets(!) to see if this home refoaming thing was actually feasible before plunking down for an actual kit.
The ghetto refoam was easy. Dryer sheets (brand unknown) were selected due to their strength, flexibility and lack of sound/noise when flexed. Cut into rounded strips matching the contour of the original foam, but a little wider; slather the strips with silicone-rubber sealant that maintains flexibility when cured; layer to suit taste (2 layers seemed like a good enough guess of the original foam's rigidity), and form around whatever's handy to match the diameter of the speaker (bucket top, coiled hose, etc.)
Once the silicone rubber had cured, it was an easy matter to arrange the pieces in place of the original foam and sort of splice them together, at this point following the normal procedures for refoaming (e.g. shimming the voice coil with whatever works, e.g. strips of Dixie cup, gluing on the new "foam", etc.).
Much to my surprise, this actually worked! It worked so well, in fact, that I just left the ghetto-foam on as a semi-permanent repair. The Scotts shake the entire neighborhood without any noticable distortion. I am amazed.
I am the webmaster of a computer privacy / security site. One of our most popular downloads is a utility that corrects Windows connection issues caused by adware/spyware that messes with the Winsock stack, aimed at novice users. Thus, the program's readme (containing contact addresses for our site) is sitting on the machines of millions of click-click-execute-happy newbies, AOLers, clueless managers and PHBs, and so forth.
The worm forges an email FROM a randomish username at a randomly-selected domain TO a randomish username at a randomly-selected domain, and ours seems pretty high on the list. We had (until yesterday...) a catch-all that directed mail to nonexistant users directly to my mailbox.
I didn't read the article, but it sounds like an awful lot of people have concluded, e.g. based on the "weight" example, that the study suggests we are conditioned by society not to deviate from the norm. While this may be true, I think there is a simpler explanation for why people are more likely to part with "average" data vs. unusual or unique data.
This conclusion has been touched upon already (see the comment "Interesting links to entropy"). One big reason people protect their private information is because it has value--in many cases, its value (to, say, a marketer working to collect that information) is that it serves to more uniquely identify a particular person or group, allowing that group to be singled out for e.g. targeted mailings. A piece of average data, shared by a large number of people, lacks this value.
Suppose you are in a situation where you are publishing a controversial paper, but must attach your real name to it. Would you be more likely to publish the paper (knowing that friends, relatives or people you come in contact with may read it) with a name like John Smith, vs. a name that is quite unique or uncommon?
Unless, for example, you use (G)AIM/ICQ/etc. to keep in touch with family and friends back home (which for some, is hundreds or thousands of miles)...or you use that hour to take care of some otherwise (more) time-wasting tasks, e.g. pay bills, shopping, and so forth, so that you have time to go out drinking with the guys later.
just no downloading movies until the next month/billing cycle starts.
Why not? You can download a movie at modem speeds (always-on fiber -- no night-connect script! -- makes it even easier). Just as long as you're willing to wait until next week to watch it:-)
This is a good idea - most leeches aren't going to complain too loudly if their p2p traffic doesn't always move as fast as their Web access, or the p2p speed drops during peak hours. Just as long as they are not throttling to something absolutely ridiculous, like 56 BYTES/sec (no joke! My university actually set this...)
Slashdot Mirror
He is trying to teach you not to cross him again.
Scientist: "AAAAAH! A TOY ROBOT!!...Oh...hehe....a toy robot."
Toy robot: "Eat lead, suckers." (opens fire)
Even worse, how many IT jobs are even posted in the paper anymore. I keep an eye on the total of IT ads in the Indianapolis Star
Try the Bihar Times.
It's proximity to nerds.
I have an All-Your-Base-derived signature, that's enough slashdot subculture for me :-) If I wanted to score /. points, I'd make some kind of half-assed Soviet Russia comment (In Soviet Russia, YOU make BEVERAGE tipsy! I.S.R., bottle cap look down on YOU! etc.), and link it to Goatse..ahem... goat.cexx.
And leave an iron-hickey someplace on your beltline, right?
Hey now, that's offensive to us true morons out here who would never know that you could see the underside of a cap by looking at it from underneath. How insensitive!
In all seriousness though, let's see... painfully obvious process, described in entirely too much detail...anyone smell a frivolous patent coming? If I were PepsiCo, I'd be at the patent office right now making sure contest-cheats were forced to resort to substantially more inconvenient methods such as shining a very bright light, or clever thermal imaging.
I know a girl whose phone number actually spells (area code removed for privacy)-FUN-SLUT. I bet that would be pretty popular.
What is not covered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act?
Does this mean we will begin to see e-mail address databases for sale in haiku form?
I haven't been having any problems with my copy of Multisim.
Many anti-virus companies actually go out of their way to name a virus something other than the author intended. The logic is that they don't want to give the author fame/recognition for their work.
I remember trying to install one of the "recent" Windows-es (I think either 98 or ME), for testing purposes, on an old P133. During the install process, it actually popped up a dialogue stating that your processor must be 150MHz or more, and refused to install.
(How are THG getting their specs for 486es and such, with these arbitrary limitations in place? Is it necessary to modify/hack the Windows installer?)
501 Server Too Busy
they've got to be doing it in one of these "run" keys
/run explorer.exe), less well-documented Registry keys such as "ShellServiceObjectDelayLoad" (try typing that 3 times really fast!), etc.
Alas, at one time this was true. Even that became passe for malware makers, so they've been stuffing them pretty much anywhere an executable can be executed from, even semi-undocumented ones. These days you can also expect them in your win.ini/system.ini (load= or run= lines), taking over filename extensions (e.g. clicking on a text file loads the spyware, which then loads notepad.exe), replacing your shell= lines (e.g. shell=spyware.exe
The equally-crafty non-EXE pests might also show up in IE's Browser Helper Object list, or insert themselves into your Winsock stack as Layered Service Providers. (These generate some, er, "fun" when you go to remove them.)
If the user has the ability to bypass the firewall, a program can do so just as easily and there is no way in Windows to differentiate between messages coming from keyboard/mouse and messages coming from other applications.
Amen. One of the semi-recent spyware apps (the name escapes me; there are just so MANY of them) is designed to circumvent Zone Alarm, one of the most popular (and free, in many cases) personal firewalls for Windows. When sending its outgoing HTTP request, it also snoops new windows as they appear. The firewall software, seeing the outgoing connection, pops up a window asking "Is it OK for this program to access the internet?", and the spyware helpfully clicks "yes" for them. This happens fast enough that most users don't know that a window appeared at all.
s/interpret/tolerate/ ? :-)
It sounds like it would discourage random nuisance people from coming in to use your workstation
You must work for Compaq.
This summer I came into possession of a big old pair of 15" Scotts whose foam had substantially rotted away. While I had seen refoam kits on the internet, I always though to myself, "could that really work?", and kind of doubted it. Since I was unemployed and brokish at the time, I didn't want to blow cash on an unproven technology (internet refoam kits) and had entirely too much free time. So I decided I would spend an afternoon performing a "ghetto refoam" with silicon sealant and dryer sheets(!) to see if this home refoaming thing was actually feasible before plunking down for an actual kit.
The ghetto refoam was easy. Dryer sheets (brand unknown) were selected due to their strength, flexibility and lack of sound/noise when flexed. Cut into rounded strips matching the contour of the original foam, but a little wider; slather the strips with silicone-rubber sealant that maintains flexibility when cured; layer to suit taste (2 layers seemed like a good enough guess of the original foam's rigidity), and form around whatever's handy to match the diameter of the speaker (bucket top, coiled hose, etc.)
Once the silicone rubber had cured, it was an easy matter to arrange the pieces in place of the original foam and sort of splice them together, at this point following the normal procedures for refoaming (e.g. shimming the voice coil with whatever works, e.g. strips of Dixie cup, gluing on the new "foam", etc.).
Much to my surprise, this actually worked! It worked so well, in fact, that I just left the ghetto-foam on as a semi-permanent repair. The Scotts shake the entire neighborhood without any noticable distortion. I am amazed.
I am the webmaster of a computer privacy / security site. One of our most popular downloads is a utility that corrects Windows connection issues caused by adware/spyware that messes with the Winsock stack, aimed at novice users. Thus, the program's readme (containing contact addresses for our site) is sitting on the machines of millions of click-click-execute-happy newbies, AOLers, clueless managers and PHBs, and so forth.
:-)
The worm forges an email FROM a randomish username at a randomly-selected domain TO a randomish username at a randomly-selected domain, and ours seems pretty high on the list. We had (until yesterday...) a catch-all that directed mail to nonexistant users directly to my mailbox.
My inbox is not a pretty sight right now
I didn't read the article, but it sounds like an awful lot of people have concluded, e.g. based on the "weight" example, that the study suggests we are conditioned by society not to deviate from the norm. While this may be true, I think there is a simpler explanation for why people are more likely to part with "average" data vs. unusual or unique data.
This conclusion has been touched upon already (see the comment "Interesting links to entropy"). One big reason people protect their private information is because it has value--in many cases, its value (to, say, a marketer working to collect that information) is that it serves to more uniquely identify a particular person or group, allowing that group to be singled out for e.g. targeted mailings. A piece of average data, shared by a large number of people, lacks this value.
Suppose you are in a situation where you are publishing a controversial paper, but must attach your real name to it. Would you be more likely to publish the paper (knowing that friends, relatives or people you come in contact with may read it) with a name like John Smith, vs. a name that is quite unique or uncommon?
I wonder how much money it would take for the average person to participate
Did you mean the smallest person?
They ain't the only ones. 2100 copies of this piece of @#$%^ as of this morning. My email server is making a funny smell.
Unless, for example, you use (G)AIM/ICQ/etc. to keep in touch with family and friends back home (which for some, is hundreds or thousands of miles)...or you use that hour to take care of some otherwise (more) time-wasting tasks, e.g. pay bills, shopping, and so forth, so that you have time to go out drinking with the guys later.
just no downloading movies until the next month/billing cycle starts.
:-)
Why not? You can download a movie at modem speeds (always-on fiber -- no night-connect script! -- makes it even easier). Just as long as you're willing to wait until next week to watch it
This is a good idea - most leeches aren't going to complain too loudly if their p2p traffic doesn't always move as fast as their Web access, or the p2p speed drops during peak hours. Just as long as they are not throttling to something absolutely ridiculous, like 56 BYTES/sec (no joke! My university actually set this...)