but are actually seeing things through the eyepiece and getting some of the science explained first hand.
I can't see through a monocular eye piece, you insensitive clod.;-)
Actually, that part is true... when I try to look through a telescope eye-piece all I see is a blob, but strangely, I can see through my DSLR (which seems to have a larger eyepiece than most telescopes do). But I've literally never seen anything through a telescope, which kinda bums me out, because I'd like to.
I strongly suspect that means I'm either an idiot, or looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Of course, the latter could be a symptom of the former.
What both of these claims are essentially saying that once your credentials have been stolen, ShapeShifter can mitigate the damage by preventing a bot from executing transactions using those stolen credentials
We don't actually provide any extra security, you'll still get ripped off, but we'll see if we can't momentarily confuse the malware with the classic "Hey, look over there" trick.
But, in the meantime, we'll mangle your web pages so we can convince you something is actually happening.
This sounds less than useful on first skimming. In fact, it sounds like an obfuscated snake-oil salesman.
Except, in our frame of reference, it's happening now, even though it happened then.
Which means in the future, we will would have seen this from before, but we won't have yet known if more stuff which will would have happened in the past will be happening in the present as the future unfolds.
So it is simultaneously not happening now, and happening now -- it isn't really happening now there, but here it is happening now, except it already happened there, and technically it has already happened here, but we're only now becoming aware of it now, but in the future, both will have happened in the past.
Which is why we stick with tenses which make sense to our poor little brains. it's just too damned hard to conjugate the verbs.;-)
So, from what I've been able to tell -- we discuss it in the present tense, and then occasionally remind ourselves that we're seeing something which happened a long time ago. But then we try not to mix up the two, because it hurts more than an ice-cream headache.
Use of "telephone technology" doesn't mean the carriers gave it to them.
It means, you know, they used telephone technology. A 'pirate cell tower' -- still telephone technology.
And, really, we know damned well that Western agencies are using the fake cell towers at demonstrations and for surveillance for more or less the same purpose. So except for the magnitude of the response (which I wouldn't rule out in the West either)... this is no different from what we know is already being done elsewhere.
As long as we continue to act like this is a legitimate thing to do, other countries will say "it is when we do it as well".
Of course not. They want their cake, and to be able to eat it to.
Actually, they want our cake, and they want the government to entrench their business mode, and generally spoil the internet to benefit them.
This is buggy-whip makers trying to get laws passed which says the roads need to be taxed and regulated to support their business model.
And, history tells me, it's US lobbying companies footing some of the bill for this, and 'helpfully' writing the wish-list of things they'd like to see. And, then once they've forced someone else to adopt it, they go back to US lawmakers and say "see, we're lagging behind on regulations like everybody else".
The power of political lobbying is the problem here, because wealthy organizations pay for better access to politicians than the rest of us get.
You know, we're not exactly happy about it either.
It's the Canadian copyright lobby, which is an arm of the US copyright lobby, petitioning government for a pony.
Once in Canada they get their pony, they can then go back to the US or to other countries and demand the same kind of pony.
Since US foreign policy and trade policy largely lets industry writes the briefings and the legislation (often quite literally), this is essentially US industries writing laws for their own benefit.
So, from our perspective, the US copyright lobby is really pissing us off, and it's another example of a business friendly government giving industry sweetheart deals stacked in their favor, and acting like it's a benefit for consumers and a win for the free market -- when in fact it's neither.
So the real thing here is that someone needs to be building a dating website for nerds (assuming it's not already happened).
Start with the proposition you've got a pool of educated individuals working in STEM-type jobs, and go from there. Then you at least know you're working with a pool of people who might have some chance of being interested in your collection of Star Wars figurines, or who want to debate the relative merits of Jar Jar as a character.
Because, really, if you tell the person you're on a date with that you used Python scripts to categorize people into several containers... you're not gonna get a second date, and the one you're on might end abruptly as the awkward silence turns into thoughts that you might, in fact, be some kind of creepy stalker.
BEGIN NERD VOICE I've done stochastic analyses of your responses to questionnaires and exhaustively compared your responses to other women on this site, and I calculate there is an 45.2% you might like me. You're the highest score yet! END NERD VOICE
Isn't it kind of obvious that Tor would be a target to be attacked?
Between government agencies and other shady characters, I should think that as soon as you announce you've got something which provides anonymity, someone would be trying to break it.
Sure, they've identified some specific things, but did anybody actually believe Tor and things like it wouldn't be targets?
Also your proto-programmer has issues with Mommy but where is Daddy? Or, by needing a Daddy surrogate, do you mean that Daddy was absent and therefore our neo-programmer is guilt-laden and angry?
How does that make you feel? Do you still resent him?
When writing code, your audience is not the compiler. When writing code, your audience is not the compiler.
Sir, I'm a member of the language police and I just pulled you over for a stupid over generalization for effect infraction.
Well, as another member of the language police I'm required to remind you that including the quote twice for effect is a breach of hyperbole rule #17-c, and is, in effect, an equivalent infraction.
Your section chief has been notified, and you will be required to take language remediation module 763.3.a.;-)
Discussing the meta-narrative implied by errant GOTO statements?
The GOTO statement is reflective of the existential malaise experienced by programmers, and typified in post-modern society.
It shows that the programmer in the code, as in life, feels they have reached a dead-end from which there is no escape, and reflective of a desire to escape the mundane and return to the optimism of youth.
The GOTO becomes a metaphor for man's desire for a quick solution to our problems, and a naive belief we can make the problems go away, and thus becomes symbolic of wish-fulfillment and fantasy to offset the feelings of stagnation and dread so often described in post-modernism.
In stack based languages, the GOTO becomes a surrogate for a strong father figure, and metaphorically kills the mother in frustration. It's also convenient for breaking out of nested logic to an error handler, which gives us feelings of going back to the womb, and indulging in self-infantilism in order to achieve a more expedient resolution of the dichotomy between self and other.
Thematically, the GOTO is both liberation, and the source of our own slavery; it simultaneously demonstrates our desire for freedom, as well as showing the futility of such a quest and how we re-enslave ourselves through our actions.
Because it highlights the existential question of "how do you implement an IF statement without a GOTO in Assembler?", it forces us to acknowledge that, as much as man tries to escape his primitive roots, there persist behavior which is neither rational nor defensible, but which we nonetheless cannot do without from an evolutionary perspective.
The GOTO defines for us the boundary between man as thinking entity, and non-thinking animal. And, as in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, forces us to look within ourselves, and confront the things we see but cannot fully understand or control.
Maybe you don't remember, but Vista was such a turd
Oh, believe me, I remember. I remember our QA guys trying to put it on machines with 512MB or RAM and failing miserably at it.
But I also know that people were mostly disappointed because it was such a resource pig as to be unusable (which was mentioned in my post) on older machines.
However, having intentionally built a box for running it and throwing obscene (at the time) resources at it -- it actually proved to be a pretty decent OS, at least in my experience.
Not saying most people did that, but if you gave it a crap ton to work with, it was pretty good -- it's still my main machine and VMWare Workstation host. For me, on this particular box, it's actually been one of the most stable Microsoft OSs I've used to date.
I've always suspected pretty much none at all, which is why I keep it turned off unless I really specifically need it -- that and it sucks battery life.
So, what do the people who know the protocols say? Is Bluetooth a protocol with any actual security, or is it just a lame, wide-open security hole written by lazy people who don't care?
Because it could be seen as tantamount to a confession to previous crimes, possibly justifying extradition?
Doesn't it depend entirely on what he actually says???
If he dances around naked with a baby Jesus butt-plug and Elton John sunglasses shouting "Censorship is bad" and wearing a beer-bong hat and peeing on a kitten -- in what way can that be "tantamount to a confession to previous crimes"???
You seem to suggest that anything he did on the interwebs would fall into that category.
No, I don't think, making such programs should be banned. But we, Americans, ought to stop buying it for our homes and libraries...
The problem is that people who have a strong desire to censor the internet have no idea how it works, and aren't willing to acknowledge that just because they don't want to see it the rest of us are willing to be censored.
You don't want to see smut, or have your children seem smut -- fine, that's your choice and up to you to enforce it and pay for it.
But making it so the rest of us can't see smut to ensure your child doesn't see smut or your religious sensibilities aren't offended... not my fucking problem.
Your choice to not see things doesn't trump my right to see what I find acceptable -- and, no, just because there are things I want to be able to see that you find offensive that I have any desire to see child pornography.
And, hell, these days kids seem to more or less make their own child pornography and text it to one another.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see through a monocular eye piece, you insensitive clod. ;-)
Actually, that part is true ... when I try to look through a telescope eye-piece all I see is a blob, but strangely, I can see through my DSLR (which seems to have a larger eyepiece than most telescopes do). But I've literally never seen anything through a telescope, which kinda bums me out, because I'd like to.
I strongly suspect that means I'm either an idiot, or looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Of course, the latter could be a symptom of the former.
We don't actually provide any extra security, you'll still get ripped off, but we'll see if we can't momentarily confuse the malware with the classic "Hey, look over there" trick.
But, in the meantime, we'll mangle your web pages so we can convince you something is actually happening.
This sounds less than useful on first skimming. In fact, it sounds like an obfuscated snake-oil salesman.
Now Earth is going to get take down notices from the Recording Industry Association of the Galaxy.
And those guys play hardball, they'll just take down the entire site (Earth).
No boom today. Boom tomorrow.
Always boom tomorrow.
Except, in our frame of reference, it's happening now, even though it happened then.
Which means in the future, we will would have seen this from before, but we won't have yet known if more stuff which will would have happened in the past will be happening in the present as the future unfolds.
So it is simultaneously not happening now, and happening now -- it isn't really happening now there, but here it is happening now, except it already happened there, and technically it has already happened here, but we're only now becoming aware of it now, but in the future, both will have happened in the past.
Which is why we stick with tenses which make sense to our poor little brains. it's just too damned hard to conjugate the verbs. ;-)
So, from what I've been able to tell -- we discuss it in the present tense, and then occasionally remind ourselves that we're seeing something which happened a long time ago. But then we try not to mix up the two, because it hurts more than an ice-cream headache.
I love Astronomers ... sure, 12 million light years away can be construed as 'nearby' on some scales.
Obviously galaxies tend to be a little further away, but it's definitely a relative use of the term 'nearby'.
Having said that ... go science! This is pretty cool.
Use of "telephone technology" doesn't mean the carriers gave it to them.
It means, you know, they used telephone technology. A 'pirate cell tower' -- still telephone technology.
And, really, we know damned well that Western agencies are using the fake cell towers at demonstrations and for surveillance for more or less the same purpose. So except for the magnitude of the response (which I wouldn't rule out in the West either) ... this is no different from what we know is already being done elsewhere.
As long as we continue to act like this is a legitimate thing to do, other countries will say "it is when we do it as well".
My guess: modernization and freedoms vs the government wishing to remain the same as in the old Soviet days.
The previous generation trying to hold onto power, the younger generation trying to become empowered.
That, or the right to go bowling on Tuesdays, it's a tough call.
Of course not. They want their cake, and to be able to eat it to.
Actually, they want our cake, and they want the government to entrench their business mode, and generally spoil the internet to benefit them.
This is buggy-whip makers trying to get laws passed which says the roads need to be taxed and regulated to support their business model.
And, history tells me, it's US lobbying companies footing some of the bill for this, and 'helpfully' writing the wish-list of things they'd like to see. And, then once they've forced someone else to adopt it, they go back to US lawmakers and say "see, we're lagging behind on regulations like everybody else".
The power of political lobbying is the problem here, because wealthy organizations pay for better access to politicians than the rest of us get.
You know, we're not exactly happy about it either.
It's the Canadian copyright lobby, which is an arm of the US copyright lobby, petitioning government for a pony.
Once in Canada they get their pony, they can then go back to the US or to other countries and demand the same kind of pony.
Since US foreign policy and trade policy largely lets industry writes the briefings and the legislation (often quite literally), this is essentially US industries writing laws for their own benefit.
So, from our perspective, the US copyright lobby is really pissing us off, and it's another example of a business friendly government giving industry sweetheart deals stacked in their favor, and acting like it's a benefit for consumers and a win for the free market -- when in fact it's neither.
I will leave that to some nerdrepreneur. Sounds like this guy should look into it.
So the real thing here is that someone needs to be building a dating website for nerds (assuming it's not already happened).
Start with the proposition you've got a pool of educated individuals working in STEM-type jobs, and go from there. Then you at least know you're working with a pool of people who might have some chance of being interested in your collection of Star Wars figurines, or who want to debate the relative merits of Jar Jar as a character.
Because, really, if you tell the person you're on a date with that you used Python scripts to categorize people into several containers ... you're not gonna get a second date, and the one you're on might end abruptly as the awkward silence turns into thoughts that you might, in fact, be some kind of creepy stalker.
BEGIN NERD VOICE
I've done stochastic analyses of your responses to questionnaires and exhaustively compared your responses to other women on this site, and I calculate there is an 45.2% you might like me. You're the highest score yet!
END NERD VOICE
Really, don't be that guy.
Bah, it's double-ROT13, that should be secure enough for anybody, right?
Isn't it kind of obvious that Tor would be a target to be attacked?
Between government agencies and other shady characters, I should think that as soon as you announce you've got something which provides anonymity, someone would be trying to break it.
Sure, they've identified some specific things, but did anybody actually believe Tor and things like it wouldn't be targets?
How does that make you feel? Do you still resent him?
Well, as another member of the language police I'm required to remind you that including the quote twice for effect is a breach of hyperbole rule #17-c, and is, in effect, an equivalent infraction.
Your section chief has been notified, and you will be required to take language remediation module 763.3.a. ;-)
The GOTO statement is reflective of the existential malaise experienced by programmers, and typified in post-modern society.
It shows that the programmer in the code, as in life, feels they have reached a dead-end from which there is no escape, and reflective of a desire to escape the mundane and return to the optimism of youth.
The GOTO becomes a metaphor for man's desire for a quick solution to our problems, and a naive belief we can make the problems go away, and thus becomes symbolic of wish-fulfillment and fantasy to offset the feelings of stagnation and dread so often described in post-modernism.
In stack based languages, the GOTO becomes a surrogate for a strong father figure, and metaphorically kills the mother in frustration. It's also convenient for breaking out of nested logic to an error handler, which gives us feelings of going back to the womb, and indulging in self-infantilism in order to achieve a more expedient resolution of the dichotomy between self and other.
Thematically, the GOTO is both liberation, and the source of our own slavery; it simultaneously demonstrates our desire for freedom, as well as showing the futility of such a quest and how we re-enslave ourselves through our actions.
Because it highlights the existential question of "how do you implement an IF statement without a GOTO in Assembler?", it forces us to acknowledge that, as much as man tries to escape his primitive roots, there persist behavior which is neither rational nor defensible, but which we nonetheless cannot do without from an evolutionary perspective.
The GOTO defines for us the boundary between man as thinking entity, and non-thinking animal. And, as in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, forces us to look within ourselves, and confront the things we see but cannot fully understand or control.
Think of this as the alarm clock you use when you have a 6am international flight, and absolutely must be up at 2am to get to the airport.
Sometimes, snoozing is not an option.
Oh, believe me, I remember. I remember our QA guys trying to put it on machines with 512MB or RAM and failing miserably at it.
But I also know that people were mostly disappointed because it was such a resource pig as to be unusable (which was mentioned in my post) on older machines.
However, having intentionally built a box for running it and throwing obscene (at the time) resources at it -- it actually proved to be a pretty decent OS, at least in my experience.
Not saying most people did that, but if you gave it a crap ton to work with, it was pretty good -- it's still my main machine and VMWare Workstation host. For me, on this particular box, it's actually been one of the most stable Microsoft OSs I've used to date.
Well, I'm not really prepared to leave wifi on for well documented reasons.
Wifi and Bluetooth are turned on only as needed -- anything else seems like a dumb idea.
I know how to use google there, skippy.
But since Slashdot is most useful when we put these things into the comment threads, I opted for that.
But, hey, you can feel free to continue to be a smarmy little wanker who thinks the rest of us don't know how to use search engines.
Because, your "yes, maybe, sorta" adds nothing of value to the discussion.
I've always suspected pretty much none at all, which is why I keep it turned off unless I really specifically need it -- that and it sucks battery life.
So, what do the people who know the protocols say? Is Bluetooth a protocol with any actual security, or is it just a lame, wide-open security hole written by lazy people who don't care?
Doesn't it depend entirely on what he actually says???
If he dances around naked with a baby Jesus butt-plug and Elton John sunglasses shouting "Censorship is bad" and wearing a beer-bong hat and peeing on a kitten -- in what way can that be "tantamount to a confession to previous crimes"???
You seem to suggest that anything he did on the interwebs would fall into that category.
What does that have to do with anything?
If some rich guy wants to go on the interwebs and say stupid things while flanked by scantily clad women, that's his right. You don't need to listen.
I'm far more worried about people making sure I can't see things because they find it offensive.
Because, I'm not concerned with what they are offended by, and I'm offended that they think it's their right to prevent me from seeing it.
The problem is that people who have a strong desire to censor the internet have no idea how it works, and aren't willing to acknowledge that just because they don't want to see it the rest of us are willing to be censored.
You don't want to see smut, or have your children seem smut -- fine, that's your choice and up to you to enforce it and pay for it.
But making it so the rest of us can't see smut to ensure your child doesn't see smut or your religious sensibilities aren't offended ... not my fucking problem.
Your choice to not see things doesn't trump my right to see what I find acceptable -- and, no, just because there are things I want to be able to see that you find offensive that I have any desire to see child pornography.
And, hell, these days kids seem to more or less make their own child pornography and text it to one another.