I wouldn't call them dumbasses, but they certainly haven't thought through it through.
Typically, NAT can be thought of as "poor-man's stateful packet filtering". That is, it provides a method for your security device to track inbound and outbound connections.
This is, of course, a very obvious security enhancement over standard packet filtering, and has nothing to do with obscurity.
Now, if (as another poster said) that the devices don't filter properly, then that's a separate issue. But the fact is that NAT does provide security. If you encounter someone who claims otherwise, ask them if stateful filtering is more secure than non-stateful. If they say yes, then they're a dumbass.:o)
They said they couldn't see what was going on, not that they couldn't control it.
Yeah - that's what I told the cop when he pulled me over for driving at night with my headlights blacked out. I told him that it's perfectly safe, because I still have full control over the vehicle - I just can't see where I'm going!
I think that it's pretty much a given that if you can't see what's going on, you're pretty much in the same boat as not being able to control it.
Don't go around assuming people don't know about networking
I didn't. This guy claims that it's OK to use someone else's routable address space, if you believe that anyone who thinks this knows enough to adminster an IP network, then you're worse than he is.
Anyone who actually works on internet routers knows that the Class system is entirely ignored.. for the last 10 years or so we've been using another system called "Classless InteRdomain Routing" (CIDR)
I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?! Where, in anything I wrote did I _EVER_ mention anything about classed networks? If you check (and I think you should) you'll see that I used CIDR notation.
"Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, never do any network setup. Ever. Until such time as you understand what you're talking about."
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, never respond to any/. posts. Ever. Until such time as you are able to pass a second-grade reading comprehension test.
if servers had to authenticate in order to transmit mail (ie, identify themselves), then perhaps we could stem the flow of spam.
Perhaps you're not aware, but all servers do identify themselves. The first thing two SMTP servers do when they connect to each other is identify themselves.
So if you're concerned about that, why not just change the mask to/16 instead of/24? Considering that the 172.(16-32).x.x addresses are all/16's anyway.
honestly, you could use whatever you wanted with the proper network setup.
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, never do any network setup. Ever. Until such time as you understand what you're talking about.
Worst case scenerio is that you might stumble upon a computer in the real world with the same IP address as you, but that'd be rare.
Depending on the range, "rare" is pretty subjective.
It's not the specific IP address, but the whole network. When you take an IP address belonging to someone else, you are not only limiting yourself from talking to that one IP address, but you're limiting yourself from talking to every computer on that IP network.
It might not even be a problem if you accessed it by a DNS entry through a DNS server that was external to your network
Before giving out advice, please learn a little bit about IP. DNS means NOTHING.
As you are violating the GPL by claiming some of the code you destributed is now covered by your copyright, And as I retain the copyright to a portion of the Linux code you now must license from me, I am submitting this invoice.
You forgot to add:
"Unfortunately, due to legal concerns, I'm unable to tell you which parts of the kernel include my copyrighted code, but rest assured it is a sizeable number of lines, throughout the entire kernel.":o)
When you resell that same item, the artist gets -nothing- out of the deal except for possibly a miniscule growth in fan base.
And can you tell me why they should? They've already been paid for it, why should they be paid again? When I sell my used car, should I have to forward a portion of it to Chrysler?
Remember, you have rights to fair personal use, just like with software. But if you read the fine print selling that software "used" is often forbidden by the license terms.
So don't agree to the license. As you said, you have the right to fair use, so using the software without agreeing to it is a non-issue. Unless the license grants me something that under copyright law I don't already have, I'd be pretty stupid to agree to it, wouldn't I? (Yes, I know that the license says that I can't use the software unless I agree, but since I'm not agreeing to be bound by the license, nothing it says matters.)
It certainly would not be hard at all to package digital records with a player, calling the whole package "software", the songs "content" and then being MUCH more restrictive on terms.
So I'll just ignore that license too. No big deal.
Truth? The link you provided doesn't include any more truth than the Wired story, just that he plead guilty, instead of continuing to be held indefinitely against his will.
There were some fairly simple and fairly successful face recognition neural networks made in the past.
"Success" being quite subjective (see below.)
I believe the neural network was trained with something like 12 faces and could distinguish between all except 2, who actually looked similar.
Biggest question is scale: First off, how long did it take to process each face? Second, if you went from 12 faces to 1200 faces, would the time required scale linearly, or would it perhaps double (for example) for each face you add?
If it was introduced to a unique face, it picked the most closely resembling one out of its set of 12.
This is the biggest stumbling block, and what I meant by saying that "success" is subjective.
This neural net might be able to distinguish between faces, but apparently only faces it knows. Evidently, there is no "unknown match" category.. So the only way it might be useful is if it had a database of every face that must recognize, and had a flag for "terrorist" and "not terrorist" - otherwise, it's useless.
That was quite a few years ago, so I'm sure a more robust neural network could be put to this task a bit more successfully.
That depends, it sounds like the whole thing was geared towards recognition when all targets were known - so "robustness" would only increase the accuracy (which in your example was only ~17% - and with a very small sample size), or increase the speed.
Coerce: tr.v. 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
And isnt this jsut what a hell of a lot of industries do?! (Think car adverts, your old car is probably doing a fine job of moving you around).
Your argument is so fundamentally flawed, it's hard for me to know where to start.
First, no, it's not like what a hell of a lot of industries do. Unlike software, cars wear out. Perhaps if the car manufacturers didn't make spare parts, and prohibited anyone else from making them, so that you'd have to buy another car, then you *might* have something similar.
Second, if a car manufacturer was a monopoly, and did the same thing, then you'd be a little bit closer.
Third, if said monopoly car manufacturer didn't include a warranty, and knowingly sold defective products, you'd be even closer.
as you are given the opportunity to not agree to the terms, logic (not Law, since Law and logic are not always in sync) dictates that the terms are, in fact, binding.
But they're only binding if you agree to them.
If you don't agree, then they're not binding. And if they're not binding, you're free to use the software in any way you choose, even pressing a button that says "I agree" (even though you don't.)
The only thing that says that clicking "I agree" is binding is the EULA itself, which you have not agreed to.
No, the fundamental problem is that there are morons who believe that spam works.
Spammers that make money do so by selling spam services to suckers who don't know better. These morons believe that "if spam didn't work, they wouldn't send it", and so happily give the spammers money to spam for them.
When the morons run out of money, the spammers move on to the next set of idiots.
It's great. The spammers get paid by the morons to do something that doesn't cost any money, so it's all profit.
If smart filtering were heavily applied they would make less money and go out of business naturally.
I see you know little of what you speak.
Spammers don't make money by selling things to the spam recipients, they make money by selling "opt-in targetted direct contact marketing" services to people who don't know any better.
Spammers don't care if nobody buys the crap in the spams, because they know that there are thousands of suckers willing to hand over their cash. All these people who say "well, it must work, otherwise people wouldn't do it."
You can't stop them by attrition. Just one more thing spammers and cockroaches have in common.
You lose. I spend way more time waiting for the files (CDRWs are SLOW.)
Re:Perspective and help.
on
GTK+ TTY Port
·
· Score: 1
Run multiple coppies of GIMP, each from a shell in the directory you want to work
YIKES! Try doing that with 100+ photos, all 2048x1548x24. And it doesn't help with saving - I still have to use the file dialog to switch to the save directory. (As I don't want to overwrite my originals.) Currently, my workaround is to copy all of the pictures to a temporary folder, and save there - it saves me some work time, but it's still a poor workaround, when it could be eliminated by a proper file dialog.
use the drag and drop capabilities of GMC, Nautulis or KDE's file browser.
Unfortunately, KDE's file browser won't drag-and-drop into Gimp.
If you try to use bookmarks, you will quickly be overwhelmed by too many of them.
I disagree, bookmarks work wonderfully. I only have 3 or 4 per app (KDE allows you to define global and app-specific bookmarks, so I have two global, and 1 or 2 app-specific), so there's no chance of being overwhelmed.
try more appropriate programs for viewing and batch manipulation.
Viewing isn't a problem. And I use ImageMagick for batch jobs where it's possible (see below.)
Eye of Gnome and Gqview are excellent programs for viewing and moving multiple files.
The problem is that I'm not just "viewing and moving" - I'm editing. I have a few hundred photos from a shoot, I need to go through them one by one, adjust the color balance, do minor touch-ups, and crop. About 40% of them are not usable, either because the shot is wrong, or because it's too similar to another (in which case I have to view them side-by-side to select the best one.)
If the shoot is going to go to the web (which it frequently is) I'll use ImageMagick to scale the phots to a better size and create thumbnails. This is pretty much the only part that's batchable (and I have bash scripts to handle that.)
Use igal to make quicky web pages
I use other software, which is better suited to my needs. A custom module (written in 1/2 hour) for the Caudium webserver automatically creates the photo albums, and allows the end user to annotate the pictures, and re-arrange them if they need to change the order.
Thanks for the advice though. I appreciate the effort, even if it doesn't help me:o)
Try this new file dialog for GTK+ 2.2.2. It has bookmarks support and a back button, making it easier to navigate.
Thanks. I took a look at it yesterday (someone mentioned it in a different story.) From reading, it apparently only works for GTK2, so (I assume) it won't do anything for Gimp (which uses 1.2 or 1.4, IIRC)
Once Gimp is updated to use the newer version of GTK, I'll be very happy though:o)
Why is a router prone to extra taxation, but a chair isn't? Is there some form of government licensing required for the router? Does the government have to do more work when you buy a router? Does LAN equipment require infrastructure that's maintained by the government?
If they're gonna tax it, fine - but how about they tax equal things equally?
Slashdot Mirror
Then your 'gurus' are dumbasses
:o)
I wouldn't call them dumbasses, but they certainly haven't thought through it through.
Typically, NAT can be thought of as "poor-man's stateful packet filtering". That is, it provides a method for your security device to track inbound and outbound connections.
This is, of course, a very obvious security enhancement over standard packet filtering, and has nothing to do with obscurity.
Now, if (as another poster said) that the devices don't filter properly, then that's a separate issue. But the fact is that NAT does provide security. If you encounter someone who claims otherwise, ask them if stateful filtering is more secure than non-stateful. If they say yes, then they're a dumbass.
They said they couldn't see what was going on, not that they couldn't control it.
Yeah - that's what I told the cop when he pulled me over for driving at night with my headlights blacked out. I told him that it's perfectly safe, because I still have full control over the vehicle - I just can't see where I'm going!
I think that it's pretty much a given that if you can't see what's going on, you're pretty much in the same boat as not being able to control it.
Don't go around assuming people don't know about networking
/. posts. Ever. Until such time as you are able to pass a second-grade reading comprehension test.
I didn't. This guy claims that it's OK to use someone else's routable address space, if you believe that anyone who thinks this knows enough to adminster an IP network, then you're worse than he is.
Anyone who actually works on internet routers knows that the Class system is entirely ignored.. for the last 10 years or so we've been using another system called "Classless InteRdomain Routing" (CIDR)
I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?!?!?! Where, in anything I wrote did I _EVER_ mention anything about classed networks? If you check (and I think you should) you'll see that I used CIDR notation.
"Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, never do any network setup. Ever. Until such time as you understand what you're talking about."
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, never respond to any
if servers had to authenticate in order to transmit mail (ie, identify themselves), then perhaps we could stem the flow of spam.
Perhaps you're not aware, but all servers do identify themselves. The first thing two SMTP servers do when they connect to each other is identify themselves.
It doesn't do a damn thing to reduce spam.
Now granted this limits me to 256 IP's
/16 instead of /24? Considering that the 172.(16-32).x.x addresses are all /16's anyway.
So if you're concerned about that, why not just change the mask to
honestly, you could use whatever you wanted with the proper network setup.
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, never do any network setup. Ever. Until such time as you understand what you're talking about.
Worst case scenerio is that you might stumble upon a computer in the real world with the same IP address as you, but that'd be rare.
Depending on the range, "rare" is pretty subjective.
It's not the specific IP address, but the whole network. When you take an IP address belonging to someone else, you are not only limiting yourself from talking to that one IP address, but you're limiting yourself from talking to every computer on that IP network.
It might not even be a problem if you accessed it by a DNS entry through a DNS server that was external to your network
Before giving out advice, please learn a little bit about IP. DNS means NOTHING .
As you are violating the GPL by claiming some of the code you destributed is now covered by your copyright, And as I retain the copyright to a portion of the Linux code you now must license from me, I am submitting this invoice.
:o)
You forgot to add:
"Unfortunately, due to legal concerns, I'm unable to tell you which parts of the kernel include my copyrighted code, but rest assured it is a sizeable number of lines, throughout the entire kernel."
When you resell that same item, the artist gets -nothing- out of the deal except for possibly a miniscule growth in fan base.
And can you tell me why they should? They've already been paid for it, why should they be paid again? When I sell my used car, should I have to forward a portion of it to Chrysler?
Remember, you have rights to fair personal use, just like with software. But if you read the fine print selling that software "used" is often forbidden by the license terms.
So don't agree to the license. As you said, you have the right to fair use, so using the software without agreeing to it is a non-issue. Unless the license grants me something that under copyright law I don't already have, I'd be pretty stupid to agree to it, wouldn't I? (Yes, I know that the license says that I can't use the software unless I agree, but since I'm not agreeing to be bound by the license, nothing it says matters.)
It certainly would not be hard at all to package digital records with a player, calling the whole package "software", the songs "content" and then being MUCH more restrictive on terms.
So I'll just ignore that license too. No big deal.
it can safely be assumed that there was good reason as the man plead guilty to a crime.
Please see this post which is in response to similar comments you made (and which you completely ignored.)
In short: pleading guilty is not necessarily an indicator that you committed a crime, especially when combined with unusual incarceration.
I'll see your lame link and raise you the truth.
Truth? The link you provided doesn't include any more truth than the Wired story, just that he plead guilty, instead of continuing to be held indefinitely against his will.
You're aware that a confession doesn't necessarily mean that the person is guilty, right? (And don't think that this doesn't happen in the US.
"limited" access is not the same as "no access,"
So, it's OK to violate someone's constitutional rights, as long as it's only a little bit, right?
There were some fairly simple and fairly successful face recognition neural networks made in the past.
"Success" being quite subjective (see below.)
I believe the neural network was trained with something like 12 faces and could distinguish between all except 2, who actually looked similar.
Biggest question is scale: First off, how long did it take to process each face? Second, if you went from 12 faces to 1200 faces, would the time required scale linearly, or would it perhaps double (for example) for each face you add?
If it was introduced to a unique face, it picked the most closely resembling one out of its set of 12.
This is the biggest stumbling block, and what I meant by saying that "success" is subjective.
This neural net might be able to distinguish between faces, but apparently only faces it knows. Evidently, there is no "unknown match" category.. So the only way it might be useful is if it had a database of every face that must recognize, and had a flag for "terrorist" and "not terrorist" - otherwise, it's useless.
That was quite a few years ago, so I'm sure a more robust neural network could be put to this task a bit more successfully.
That depends, it sounds like the whole thing was geared towards recognition when all targets were known - so "robustness" would only increase the accuracy (which in your example was only ~17% - and with a very small sample size), or increase the speed.
Coerce doesnt mean "force", it means "pursuade"
I think you need to check your dictionary:
Coerce: tr.v. 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
And isnt this jsut what a hell of a lot of industries do?! (Think car adverts, your old car is probably doing a fine job of moving you around).
Your argument is so fundamentally flawed, it's hard for me to know where to start.
First, no, it's not like what a hell of a lot of industries do. Unlike software, cars wear out. Perhaps if the car manufacturers didn't make spare parts, and prohibited anyone else from making them, so that you'd have to buy another car, then you *might* have something similar.
Second, if a car manufacturer was a monopoly, and did the same thing, then you'd be a little bit closer.
Third, if said monopoly car manufacturer didn't include a warranty, and knowingly sold defective products, you'd be even closer.
But you'd still be pretty far off.
Try again.
coerce those running older versions of Office to upgrade, which has been a problem for MS in the last few years
Yeah, it's so damn irritating when your customers pay you for something, and then expect to continue using it.
when Microsoft slips a release date, does the Slashdot crowd applaud Microsoft for not rushing the product to market prematureley?
I certainly do.
I think that it's a great thing - don't ship it until it's done.
Just like the Linux kernel.
Don't forget that for each of the major kernel releases, there were people here bitching that it took too long.
If you do not agree with the license, why buy the product?
How about because you can't see the license until after you buy the software?
As the previous poster mentioned:
The only way an EULA can be binding is if someone is required to sign the EULA before buying the product
An EULA is an illegal attempt for one party to modify a contract after the contract has been accepted by both parties.
the user has two choices regarding getting and using the software
No, actually, they have three options:
3) The user buys the software, rejects the EULA, and continues to use the software under existing copyright law.
Of course he's a spammer.
Would a non-spammer have to bug email to know if thier stuff is being read?
It cetainly isn't appropriate for every email messge.
And it _still_ won't do anything to stop (or even slow) SPAM. All it will do is force them to pay a little bit more in order to do so.
as you are given the opportunity to not agree to the terms, logic (not Law, since Law and logic are not always in sync) dictates that the terms are, in fact, binding.
But they're only binding if you agree to them.
If you don't agree, then they're not binding. And if they're not binding, you're free to use the software in any way you choose, even pressing a button that says "I agree" (even though you don't.)
The only thing that says that clicking "I agree" is binding is the EULA itself, which you have not agreed to.
The fundamental problem is that SPAM WORKS.
No, the fundamental problem is that there are morons who believe that spam works.
Spammers that make money do so by selling spam services to suckers who don't know better. These morons believe that "if spam didn't work, they wouldn't send it", and so happily give the spammers money to spam for them.
When the morons run out of money, the spammers move on to the next set of idiots.
It's great. The spammers get paid by the morons to do something that doesn't cost any money, so it's all profit.
If smart filtering were heavily applied they would make less money and go out of business naturally.
I see you know little of what you speak.
Spammers don't make money by selling things to the spam recipients, they make money by selling "opt-in targetted direct contact marketing" services to people who don't know any better.
Spammers don't care if nobody buys the crap in the spams, because they know that there are thousands of suckers willing to hand over their cash. All these people who say "well, it must work, otherwise people wouldn't do it."
You can't stop them by attrition. Just one more thing spammers and cockroaches have in common.
You lose. I spend way more time waiting for the files (CDRWs are SLOW.)
Run multiple coppies of GIMP, each from a shell in the directory you want to work
:o)
YIKES! Try doing that with 100+ photos, all 2048x1548x24. And it doesn't help with saving - I still have to use the file dialog to switch to the save directory. (As I don't want to overwrite my originals.) Currently, my workaround is to copy all of the pictures to a temporary folder, and save there - it saves me some work time, but it's still a poor workaround, when it could be eliminated by a proper file dialog.
use the drag and drop capabilities of GMC, Nautulis or KDE's file browser.
Unfortunately, KDE's file browser won't drag-and-drop into Gimp.
If you try to use bookmarks, you will quickly be overwhelmed by too many of them.
I disagree, bookmarks work wonderfully. I only have 3 or 4 per app (KDE allows you to define global and app-specific bookmarks, so I have two global, and 1 or 2 app-specific), so there's no chance of being overwhelmed.
try more appropriate programs for viewing and batch manipulation.
Viewing isn't a problem. And I use ImageMagick for batch jobs where it's possible (see below.)
Eye of Gnome and Gqview are excellent programs for viewing and moving multiple files.
The problem is that I'm not just "viewing and moving" - I'm editing. I have a few hundred photos from a shoot, I need to go through them one by one, adjust the color balance, do minor touch-ups, and crop. About 40% of them are not usable, either because the shot is wrong, or because it's too similar to another (in which case I have to view them side-by-side to select the best one.)
If the shoot is going to go to the web (which it frequently is) I'll use ImageMagick to scale the phots to a better size and create thumbnails. This is pretty much the only part that's batchable (and I have bash scripts to handle that.)
Use igal to make quicky web pages
I use other software, which is better suited to my needs. A custom module (written in 1/2 hour) for the Caudium webserver automatically creates the photo albums, and allows the end user to annotate the pictures, and re-arrange them if they need to change the order.
Thanks for the advice though. I appreciate the effort, even if it doesn't help me
Try this new file dialog for GTK+ 2.2.2. It has bookmarks support and a back button, making it easier to navigate.
:o)
Thanks. I took a look at it yesterday (someone mentioned it in a different story.) From reading, it apparently only works for GTK2, so (I assume) it won't do anything for Gimp (which uses 1.2 or 1.4, IIRC)
Once Gimp is updated to use the newer version of GTK, I'll be very happy though
Try copying the files before you edit them :)
You know what? I already do.
But it would be nicer if I didn't have to.
OK, here's what's got me confused:
What is so special about LANs?
Why is a router prone to extra taxation, but a chair isn't? Is there some form of government licensing required for the router? Does the government have to do more work when you buy a router? Does LAN equipment require infrastructure that's maintained by the government?
If they're gonna tax it, fine - but how about they tax equal things equally?