You pick up your ticket, then you change your mind and leave, putting your ticket in the exit turnstile to get out. The cosmic BART megamachine will charge you the maximum possible fare, even though you haven't gone anywhere. For a good reason. What's the reason?
At a guess to stop the following:
Person A in system with ticket A. Person B outside with ticket B. Person B enters with ticket B, swaps ticket with person A, who leaves with ticket B. If ticket B was not charged, this could be repeated until whoever ended up with ticket A without someone outside had to pay the maximum fare. This would mean that only one fare was paid for an unlimited amount of people to travel.
Bull. (and it's resolutions, not sanctions) All the evidence found has shown that there was no WMD in Iraq after the first gulf war. The UN resolution was an order for Iraq to get rid of WMD under threat of sanctions, it would appear that they complied with the order, but the sanctions still remained in place. There was UN backing for the retaking of Kuwait, but there was no UN backing for the Iraq invasion.
We should have just kept on telling Saddam to stop firing at US plans that were enforcing the no fly zones,
No Fly zones were a US imposition, there was no UN backing for that. Plus, if the UN told americans that they weren't allowed to fly over thier own country, don't you think the'd be pissed and shoot at the invaders too?
and keep asking him to let the UN inspectors do their jobs,
Which they did, and found no WMD, but that never good enough for the US. Rather like a witch trial, executed if you are guilty, and only able to prove your innocence by dying. the US attitude for WMD was that if they can't find them, then they must be really well hidden!
because even though he used chemical weapons no his own people,
Possession of a winter jacket and a Brazilian sun-tan gets you far, far worse than a hauling away.
It wasn't a winter jacket, it was a demin one. He didn't jump the barriers, he walked through them with his ticket, just like any other commuter. He was sitting down in the train when he was grabbed, pinnmed down, and shot eight times (with another three shots missing)
The authors want to be consulted on how their copyrighted text is used. And that is absolutely their right.
Why is that their right? If an engineer designs a building, does he have the right to dictate what each room must be used for by the owners?
And if Google use their texts to generate ad revenue, they deserve a cut of that revenue, or at least the right to refuse to allow Google to exploit them in that way.
So google puts in the work in scanning, indexing, and hosting the books, and the authors, who have done no aditional work deserve to be paid a cut? Surely it should be the other way round, google puts in the work, auther sells more books and gives cut to google for the advertising?
Doesn't having people profit on the work of others solely because they own the "intellectual property" remind you of any corrupt regimes in the past?
The catch is that Outlook security is incredibly tight and unless you open massive security holes, the macro wouldn't run unless it was digitally signed by a trusted provider.
Did you notice anything wrong with this? Namely that you, the owner of the computer, could not get to choose *yourself* as a trusted provider, but had to get versign to say that you can trust yourself, for which they get $400. Nice work if you can get it, eh?
so we spam the spammers sending spam...wait..what?
Nope. Spamming is a large scale untargeted mailing, namely one person emailing lots of other people. The response however is not spam, as each person only sends one email in response. The fact that a large number of people send one email/complaint is irrelevent, each and every one of those was emailed by the spammer and is entitled to at least one reply.
Imagine if this was 100% successful - spammers would get 100% response rate - how long would they end up spamming a list with 3,000,000 names if they knew they would get 3,000,0000 responses?
What these (prospective) students did was wrong. Period. They willingly and knowingly gained unauthorized access to information that was not theirs to access.
Why was it unauthorized? They asked the college web server for information, and it gave it to them. They didn't "hack" into it, changing the URL's just asked the websever for different information. Plus the infomration was theirs, they were going to get it in a day or two anyway.
I generally hate analogies but here goes: if these students found a key to their professor's room and snuck in to check on their exam results, do you think there'd be a furor as to whether they are guilty of cheatin or not?
Bad anologoy, IMO, that comes across as if they hacked in with a stolen password, or similar.
For an anology, try this: someone found out that the Prof's secretary had the results early and would tell you if you asked. Someone leaked this fact, and some students went and asked the secretary. Should they be punished for finding out their results, just because the Professor didn't tell his secretary not to release the results yet?
How is getting information by asking the right question from the right person any different by getting information from the right server by sending the right request, and how is that wrong?
I mean, c'mon, think about things before you say them. Even REAL TIME SYSTEMS AT NASA don't run with enough consistency to be able to tell WHICH CHARACTER IN A STRCMP OPERATIONS fails.
Maybe the original poster was referring to the DEC-10 page fault password insecutity that was based on strcmp returing as soon as it encountered once wrong character, based roughly on the following idea:
1) Place Password with 1st/2nd character on a page boundry.
2) Clear cache
3) Call Password check.
4) If no page fault occurred, then the 1st char must be wrong, change it and goto 3
5) if page fault occurred, 1st character is correct (as 2nd char was checked), move password so 2/3 char is on page boundry and repeat.
In this way, you can reduce the attack by a huge amount, for a n length password the brute force attack needed goes down from 256^n to 256*n.
So, yes, attacks based on which character in strcmp fails have worked in the past, so it is valid to try and not make the same type of mistake again!
Nope, not at all. First assume the [generalised] statement is true. This implies that all generalisms (including itself) are wrong, causing a contradiction. Ergo, statement cannot be true.
Now assume statement is false. The opposite of the above statement is "At least one generalisms is correct" not "All generalisms are correct". Ergo, this statement is incorrect, but its incorrectness has no implications on its own correctness.
This already happens in the UK, if you are charged the police can take DNA samples, etc, and under laws passed a few years back, keep them as long as they like, even if the charge proves groundless. (previously you could witness them being destroyed)
It's going to be a close race between the UK and the US as to which becomes the full police state earlier!
You can imagine what might happen if Osama Bin Ladin were to be captured in a country that has no death penalty (say the UK), the international politics that might result...
All the US government would have to do, is label them a suspected terrorist, and they wouldn't even have to give any evidence, and the UK would hand them over. (But this doesn't work the other way round, of course)
A
recent example of this lopsided agreement being used, makes it clear:
Under the act [UK Jan 2004] there is no requirement for the US authorities to present a prima facie case, although UK authorities must do so in seeking extraditions from the US.
When will the record companies learn, if they price there product in an affordable price range, people will buy.
Not to mention, when it makes products people will not buy, it should not blame lack of sales on other reasons.
Case in point, there are several CD's on my Buy list, that are "copy corrupted", which I will not buy until they come out in CD-DA format. (As they can no guarantee that the will work on all CD equipementI own, or will own in the future). I have no doubt that all "loss of sales",including mine, they have attributted to "pricey" (typo, but it's an accurate description). What I've done is gone to every record store in town, picked up all the CD's I would have bought, went to the counter, and asked for a "real" CD of them. When they couldn't give me one (and it got a lot of confused faces) I said I could buy them because they were an inferior product, and a lost sale, and left the store. (let them re-stock it) Only Virgin took any notice, HMV couldn't care less. HMV onloline don't even label the defective CD's (amazon do) which I'm considering reporting to the ASA) (If you're not in the UK, don't worry about the TLA's:)
Specifically, if the parent didn't know a crime was going on (meaning they genuinely didn't know their child was downloading copyrighted material), how can the parent be held accountable?
Proably because they are the account holder for the internet connection, and are held responsible for anything downloaded via it.
Indeed, and that's were the phrase "daylight robbery" came from - one of the MPs challenging the law, described it as "robbing the citizens of their daylight"
Interestingly, in 2002 the ER staff were shocked when I insisted on reading the consent for surgery form before signing it. Most people don't read things that are put in front of them that they're told is standard and must be signed.
In one of the police footage shows in the UK, there was a clip of a police officer handing a form to a person they had stopped, who clearly wasn't a fluent english speaker. The officer's words were "Sign this, and then I'll explain what it is".
In short, the court found that sites on the Internet implicitly allow open access unless they explicitly state otherwise.
Does this judegement have any effect on deep linking, I wonder? Maybe not for the person that posts the link, but what about the person who follows that link, which may be against the explicit rules of the website?.
That said, if I connect to a ftp server and ask to log in, that to me is an explicit request for access. If the ftp server says okay, then isn't that granting explicit permission regardless of the general T's and C's state?
MS Outlook formats the telephone number automatically based on the country of the contact. If no country is entered into the country, your location is used instead to determine the nmber format.
One problem with this (and with the poster who suggested using locale) is that the telephone number format can be different - even within the same country. The UK, for example, has area codes of lengths 3 and 4 (and up till a few years ago, had length 2 ones, as well.
An additional problem with the outlook method is the case where one contact has multiple phone contacts, based in different countries.
Fro every generic rule you can think of putting in, there are always multiple case where it will get it wrong, hence I think the only sensible solution is to allow the user to choose to formatting in one way or another.
It's also a pain to enter phone numbers. If you type 555 5551234 and it keeps it like that. It doesn't reformat to (555)555-1234.
How is it supposed to know what format to put them in? Phone numbers are displayed in a multitude of different ways, area codes aren't always the same length, so applying the same algorithm would not always give the correct format, and any "autoformat" that gets the wrong answer can be a pain to work around, not to mention that number formats can change over time, so I guess that this is a free format field. Does it allow (but ignore) non-numeric, per chance?
If you wanted a predicable formating, you'd have to store/enter the numbers as indiviual parts (international code/area code/phone number/extension) and have the formating as +%I (%A) %N[3-4] X%x or such like.
I'm no fan of spam, but really how much of an inconvenience is it to delete unwanted email?
In small doses, not a lot. but once your email gets on enough lists you would be looking at a ballpark of an hour every day deleting unwanted messages. That's past inconvenient in my book, and well into being a waste of time, resulting in what is basically a destruction of an contact address.
Filters can help, but have the problem of false positives, so you can run the risk of losing email, or check your junk folder (which also takes time) Filters on the ISP level which are commonplace also have the knock-on effect that email is a lot less reliable. Previously email could get lost or delayed, but you were usually informed by a NDR. Now, NDR are ignored, as they're usually bounces from forged spam, and ISP can drop suspected spam without any notifiaction, so you have no idea of the state of youe message.
I wish more effort would be put into stopping Chase and Discover from sending me credit card offers through the post every day of the week.
Snail mail spam is self-regulating in the sense that it costs them money to send out, so they at least try to target it. If you tell them you don't want it, it makes commerical sense for them to stop, as it's costing them money. With email spammers, they dont' care, as it costs them the same to send to 100,001 people as it is to 100,000
Slashdot Mirror
At a guess to stop the following:
Person A in system with ticket A. Person B outside with ticket B. Person B enters with ticket B, swaps ticket with person A, who leaves with ticket B. If ticket B was not charged, this could be repeated until whoever ended up with ticket A without someone outside had to pay the maximum fare. This would mean that only one fare was paid for an unlimited amount of people to travel.
Does the level of the lake fall, rise, or stay the same?
If B also is zero, then b^n is 0^0 which is undefined.
Bull. (and it's resolutions, not sanctions) All the evidence found has shown that there was no WMD in Iraq after the first gulf war. The UN resolution was an order for Iraq to get rid of WMD under threat of sanctions, it would appear that they complied with the order, but the sanctions still remained in place. There was UN backing for the retaking of Kuwait, but there was no UN backing for the Iraq invasion.
We should have just kept on telling Saddam to stop firing at US plans that were enforcing the no fly zones,
No Fly zones were a US imposition, there was no UN backing for that. Plus, if the UN told americans that they weren't allowed to fly over thier own country, don't you think the'd be pissed and shoot at the invaders too?
and keep asking him to let the UN inspectors do their jobs,
Which they did, and found no WMD, but that never good enough for the US. Rather like a witch trial, executed if you are guilty, and only able to prove your innocence by dying. the US attitude for WMD was that if they can't find them, then they must be really well hidden!
because even though he used chemical weapons no his own people,
After which the US shook his hand - literally.
It wasn't a winter jacket, it was a demin one. He didn't jump the barriers, he walked through them with his ticket, just like any other commuter. He was sitting down in the train when he was grabbed, pinnmed down, and shot eight times (with another three shots missing)
BBC Article
Why is that their right? If an engineer designs a building, does he have the right to dictate what each room must be used for by the owners?
And if Google use their texts to generate ad revenue, they deserve a cut of that revenue, or at least the right to refuse to allow Google to exploit them in that way.
So google puts in the work in scanning, indexing, and hosting the books, and the authors, who have done no aditional work deserve to be paid a cut? Surely it should be the other way round, google puts in the work, auther sells more books and gives cut to google for the advertising?
Doesn't having people profit on the work of others solely because they own the "intellectual property" remind you of any corrupt regimes in the past?
And without hearing from both sides, who's to say that they aren't correct?
Did you notice anything wrong with this? Namely that you, the owner of the computer, could not get to choose *yourself* as a trusted provider, but had to get versign to say that you can trust yourself, for which they get $400. Nice work if you can get it, eh?
Nope. Spamming is a large scale untargeted mailing, namely one person emailing lots of other people. The response however is not spam, as each person only sends one email in response. The fact that a large number of people send one email/complaint is irrelevent, each and every one of those was emailed by the spammer and is entitled to at least one reply.
Imagine if this was 100% successful - spammers would get 100% response rate - how long would they end up spamming a list with 3,000,000 names if they knew they would get 3,000,0000 responses?
I had great fun explaning that to my mum when she first used xp
Did you also have fun explaining that you turn off a car by turning the key in its "ignition"?
If you think about it what other option to shutting down via the start menu is there? Have a dedicated stop menu?
Why was it unauthorized? They asked the college web server for information, and it gave it to them. They didn't "hack" into it, changing the URL's just asked the websever for different information. Plus the infomration was theirs, they were going to get it in a day or two anyway.
I generally hate analogies but here goes: if these students found a key to their professor's room and snuck in to check on their exam results, do you think there'd be a furor as to whether they are guilty of cheatin or not?
Bad anologoy, IMO, that comes across as if they hacked in with a stolen password, or similar.
For an anology, try this: someone found out that the Prof's secretary had the results early and would tell you if you asked. Someone leaked this fact, and some students went and asked the secretary. Should they be punished for finding out their results, just because the Professor didn't tell his secretary not to release the results yet?
How is getting information by asking the right question from the right person any different by getting information from the right server by sending the right request, and how is that wrong?
Maybe the original poster was referring to the DEC-10 page fault password insecutity that was based on strcmp returing as soon as it encountered once wrong character, based roughly on the following idea:
1) Place Password with 1st/2nd character on a page boundry.
2) Clear cache
3) Call Password check.
4) If no page fault occurred, then the 1st char must be wrong, change it and goto 3
5) if page fault occurred, 1st character is correct (as 2nd char was checked), move password so 2/3 char is on page boundry and repeat.
In this way, you can reduce the attack by a huge amount, for a n length password the brute force attack needed goes down from 256^n to 256*n.
So, yes, attacks based on which character in strcmp fails have worked in the past, so it is valid to try and not make the same type of mistake again!
Isn't that a paradox?
Nope, not at all. First assume the [generalised] statement is true. This implies that all generalisms (including itself) are wrong, causing a contradiction. Ergo, statement cannot be true.
Now assume statement is false. The opposite of the above statement is "At least one generalisms is correct" not "All generalisms are correct". Ergo, this statement is incorrect, but its incorrectness has no implications on its own correctness.
It's going to be a close race between the UK and the US as to which becomes the full police state earlier!
All the US government would have to do, is label them a suspected terrorist, and they wouldn't even have to give any evidence, and the UK would hand them over. (But this doesn't work the other way round, of course)
A recent example of this lopsided agreement being used, makes it clear: Under the act [UK Jan 2004] there is no requirement for the US authorities to present a prima facie case, although UK authorities must do so in seeking extraditions from the US.
Then again, we are the country that has just re-introduced imprisionment without trial.
Not to mention, when it makes products people will not buy, it should not blame lack of sales on other reasons.
Case in point, there are several CD's on my Buy list, that are "copy corrupted", which I will not buy until they come out in CD-DA format. (As they can no guarantee that the will work on all CD equipementI own, or will own in the future). I have no doubt that all "loss of sales",including mine, they have attributted to "pricey" (typo, but it's an accurate description). What I've done is gone to every record store in town, picked up all the CD's I would have bought, went to the counter, and asked for a "real" CD of them. When they couldn't give me one (and it got a lot of confused faces) I said I could buy them because they were an inferior product, and a lost sale, and left the store. (let them re-stock it) Only Virgin took any notice, HMV couldn't care less. HMV onloline don't even label the defective CD's (amazon do) which I'm considering reporting to the ASA) (If you're not in the UK, don't worry about the TLA's :)
Proably because they are the account holder for the internet connection, and are held responsible for anything downloaded via it.
Indeed, and that's were the phrase "daylight robbery" came from - one of the MPs challenging the law, described it as "robbing the citizens of their daylight"
No, we paid for it. What this fascination some people have with ropes is, I have no idea.
Slackers!
In case the joke isn't obvious, remember: Paid = received money. Payed = slacken ropes.
In one of the police footage shows in the UK, there was a clip of a police officer handing a form to a person they had stopped, who clearly wasn't a fluent english speaker. The officer's words were "Sign this, and then I'll explain what it is".
Does this judegement have any effect on deep linking, I wonder? Maybe not for the person that posts the link, but what about the person who follows that link, which may be against the explicit rules of the website?.
That said, if I connect to a ftp server and ask to log in, that to me is an explicit request for access. If the ftp server says okay, then isn't that granting explicit permission regardless of the general T's and C's state?
One problem with this (and with the poster who suggested using locale) is that the telephone number format can be different - even within the same country. The UK, for example, has area codes of lengths 3 and 4 (and up till a few years ago, had length 2 ones, as well.
An additional problem with the outlook method is the case where one contact has multiple phone contacts, based in different countries.
Fro every generic rule you can think of putting in, there are always multiple case where it will get it wrong, hence I think the only sensible solution is to allow the user to choose to formatting in one way or another.
How is it supposed to know what format to put them in? Phone numbers are displayed in a multitude of different ways, area codes aren't always the same length, so applying the same algorithm would not always give the correct format, and any "autoformat" that gets the wrong answer can be a pain to work around, not to mention that number formats can change over time, so I guess that this is a free format field. Does it allow (but ignore) non-numeric, per chance?
If you wanted a predicable formating, you'd have to store/enter the numbers as indiviual parts (international code/area code/phone number/extension) and have the formating as +%I (%A) %N[3-4] X%x or such like.
In small doses, not a lot. but once your email gets on enough lists you would be looking at a ballpark of an hour every day deleting unwanted messages. That's past inconvenient in my book, and well into being a waste of time, resulting in what is basically a destruction of an contact address.
Filters can help, but have the problem of false positives, so you can run the risk of losing email, or check your junk folder (which also takes time) Filters on the ISP level which are commonplace also have the knock-on effect that email is a lot less reliable. Previously email could get lost or delayed, but you were usually informed by a NDR. Now, NDR are ignored, as they're usually bounces from forged spam, and ISP can drop suspected spam without any notifiaction, so you have no idea of the state of youe message.
I wish more effort would be put into stopping Chase and Discover from sending me credit card offers through the post every day of the week.
Snail mail spam is self-regulating in the sense that it costs them money to send out, so they at least try to target it. If you tell them you don't want it, it makes commerical sense for them to stop, as it's costing them money. With email spammers, they dont' care, as it costs them the same to send to 100,001 people as it is to 100,000