Seems like it's not over-engineering. This is less steps than speech-to-text as far as I can see.
You have to record the speech and convert those sounds into phonemes. Now all you do is use the picture(s) that go with that phoneme, which is going to be more or less consistent.
With speech-to-text you have to use probability and word banks to figure out what the heck words those phonemes are supposed to go with, which is the hardest part by far, because spelling and grammar is so inconsistent. That requires a lot more time and computing power, and you are prone to a bunch more mistakes of course.
Usually, the prefix dis- implies a loss of something, as in disease, disgust and disgrace. Very occasionally, as here, it means "entirely" or "very". So disgruntled means something like "extremely gruntled ". So, what does gruntle mean? It is a variant of the word grunt with the obsolete meaning of "grumble". The word appeared sometime around 1680 but was originally a transitive verb meaning "to give [someone] extreme cause to grumble". Incidentally, a word formed by lengthening another (like gruntle from grunt) is called a frequentative form of the earlier word.
This "gruntled = happy" extrapolation is specious, but if it really starts to become widespread, then "gruntled" really will mean "happy". Just like the word "irregardless" is on the brink of official acceptance (god help us).
I think both of those sound very, very stupid-- but what are you gonna do?
The longer people are exposed to the spam, the more and more they just ignore it. Much like regular junk snail mail.
Well, do you still get junk snail mail, even though everyone and their mother has been exposed to it all your life? Yes we all do, so I'd say spam is probably not going away either (unless we think of something to STOP it).
Yeah, I agree with your modification of my analogy, although I think it can be shown how easily it can be done and cause public outcry without giving excessive insight into how it is carried out. I think in this case, more info than necessary was given.
I think both the originator of the hole, as well as those who put gratuitous and dangerous info into public forums, are being irresponsible.
Heck, I'd like to see things like this tarnishing MS's reputation. I just don't think it needs to be at the expense of Joe computer user.
security *did* get compromised, the damage is already done at that point, is it not? People who exploit the publicized hack aren't going to "shuffle some files" around, they'll screw up the machine. Sure, Joe Victim will wish he had believed it earlier, but now it's too late.
"Tell a man there are a billion stars in the universe and he will believe you. Tell him a bench is covered in wet paint and he'll touch it."
Now, that sounds like it means that if you tell someone something that is beyond the scope of their understanding or knowledge, they will believe you, but if it is more tangible/testable to them, they'll be more critical.
I don't understand how this strengthens the idea that people's machines actually need to be compromised before they believe it could happen.
In the many, many average computer users I run across, it seems like if Microsoft sends out a patch, or Symantec/Norton says there is a problem, people *are* likely to believe it without evidence at all. That has been my observation.
But ultimately, I just don't understand the logic behind "until you kick them in the pants, they just won't believe that it'll hurt." I mean, the ultimate goal is to keep them from being metaphorically kicked in the pants, so if you have to actually carry out the kicking as part of the solution, well... it sounds pointless to me. Sounds like just punishing other people's lack of knowledge for your amusement/satisfaction.
Well, if they were to mysteriously state that there is a problem, without enough information to reproduce the flaw, you are not giving enough information for the people to protect themselves.
I disagree about this only because it isn't something the average computer user knows how to deal with (not even close!). And the fact of the matter is, a very large number of people don't have knowledgeable admins making sure their computer is safe.
I feel like the hardcore crackers already know about this one, as well as a lot of admins. By giving out specific exploit info you are not helping them, nor (if you agree with what I said above) are you helping Joe User. I feel like you are helping some foolish script kiddies that might otherwise not have a clue or put forth the effort and possibly causing the exploit to actually be exploited more often.
I just think making a big public stink over the problem and giving vague info on it publicly is still going to motivate MS as well as anything else (IMO).
You do realize that it isn't the laziness of MS that *actually* does harm, but the fact that it allows malicious people to do bad things?
Are you suggesting that Microsoft's inaction and refusal to fix the problem when they first learned of it six weeks ago was not harmful?
What I mean is, the actual neglect isn't what truly does the harm, but the act itself. Just like a security guard falling asleep isn't *actually* the harm itself-- the harm is when this allows someone to sneak in and rob the place.
It is for this reason that I find the aiding of the bad result (going to a public place and announcing the guard is asleep, say) to be no better than the guard who fell asleep. You're both aiding the bad guys, only the person who gives them the tip off is even more directly helping them. Both are in the wrong.
You probably also believe the infamous exploding gas tanks on the Ford Pinto wasn't harmful, and the deaths and injuries were purely the fault of drivers hitting Pintos.
Obviously no. But again, in terms of actual cause and effect, it wasn't Ford's laziness that *causes* the explosions, it is just gross neglect that doesn't stop it from happening. I think publicly saying there is a problem like that is a good idea. Explaining how to exploit the problem and blow the tank up maliciously is exacerbating the problem and making *potential* harm into real harm.
It's all the faults of those hackers, and Microsoft's "laziness" (when they knew of the problem in advance) never receives any of the blame? Yet someone who attempts to force the issue with a high profile public announcement, only after first having made an attempt to get them to fix it, is somehow as guilty in your little world as the actual attachers and at the same time the vendor who refused to fix the problem with advanced notice is not to blame at all?
So, have you stopped beating your wife? (But seriously, I think I clarified already above.)
The only thing I would want to be different in what you described is that, instead of getting on the news and explaining how to exploit this door problem, I think he should explain there is a problem with the locking mechanism on the door, and that's all.
He shouldn't say "Here is how you do it. You twist this nob like so and press this in and then turn counter-clockwise 10 degrees and then turn quickly clockwise..." and so on.
I don't see how this extended explanation helps the average person (those who are lock experts and hardcore burglars already know/know where to find out). But I do see how some stupid kids, angry husbands, curious people or others that don't usually spend time trying to get into people's houses might just do it because it is presented right in front of their face.
That's where I think it's too far (although my analogy from before was a bit off).
Well, I basically agree. I mean, I think Bugtraq does a really good service by publicly pointing out problems. And pointing out problems in the police force to effect change there is a good idea too. I just think there is a definite middle ground.
The analogy was a little off, but my point is that publicly stating there is a crucial problem is different than showing how to exploit it. I think giving very direct info on how to carry out said bug steps beyond the middle ground.
In that respect, it feels like the plan is to make MS's exploits do harm to people and ruin MS's reputation, so people will leave the platform.
(I bet some people here would openly admit that's the case, but that's a different subject altogether.)
Naturally I'm not saying it should be illegal for Bugtraq to do this if they want, so I don't see how it's a free speech issue.
I'm just saying I doubt they are helping anything by being so specific, when they could just say the problem exists without giving people the means to impliment it.
Does this not sound pretty absurd? That's like saying, "the police in my town are lazy and aren't cracking down on crime. That's why we need to start committing crimes left and right and encouraging others to do the same until the cops are motivated enough."
Ummm, you do realize that in the meantime, you are committing crimes and screwing up innocent people's lives right? You do realize that it isn't the laziness of MS that *actually* does harm, but the fact that it allows malicious people to do bad things? Doing the malicious thing itself or helping people directly to do that is a heck of a lot worse than anything MS might be doing.
Considering marathoners go about 12 MPH, and sprinters go about about 20 MPH and they are both legal on the sidewalk (and most of them weigh over 95 lbs - except the women marathoners)
Uhhh... you do realize that you have to count your own body weight onto that 95 lbs... right??
It doesn't have a parking brake? Seriously. That seems like a very logical thing to have. Forget voice recognition or anything else. I want to be certain each time I park this thing that it stays put. I wonder why they wouldn't have something like this in it? Too obvious?
Maybe the non-prototype consumer version does have it, who knows.
Just recently you took part in a massive paintball charity match in Joliet, IL for your "Ahead with Horses" charity, in which you, as Captain Kirk, led the Federation against a team of Klingons and the Borg. It sounded like an amazing idea!
So, what I'm wondering is, how did it go? Did you enjoy paintball (and reprising your "Captain Kirk" role)? Also, I heard mention of the entire thing being was to be documented in a video. Is that still in the works, and if so, where can one purchase it?
I agree, bringing in religion/morality to the government is bad.
I don't know that the state is truly taking a moral stance in this case-- they are leaving that to the company that maintains the domain. And hopefully, the opt-in nature of this approach means that that company doesn't have too much power. If they stray too far off below or above the average morality level, people won't use the service.
So, really, this domain ought to represent the average morality level (which, in America, might be really screwed up anyway, but I'm not sure how to be more fair).
Maybe it won't end up that way at all, who knows. Sounds possible though.
Well, there is, naturally, other value to this domain scheme (in theory). That is the ability to keep one's children away from constantly running into things like hardcore pornography, hate speech, extreme violence until the parent deems the children ready to handle it. The difference between this and a lot of censorship campaigns is the fact that this doesn't force parents to comply. They (not gov't) still control what their kids do and do not see.
Your "it's opt-in so it's a good thing" argument is irrelevant
My argument is "it's opt-in so it's not a bad thing" (an important distinction), and it's IMO a good thing for other reasons like what I touched on above.
Then, if in practice it doesn't turn out to be as useful as in theory (holes in the protection, too restrictive, etc.), we will learn that by people not wanting to use it, but the rest of the Internet isn't hurt by this.
If we have to wait to act until we've found a Sure Thing, then we'll never get anywhere. I think this has a good shot with a low penalty for failure.
Care to complete that thought with some support? How would this be different from, say, laws protecting things like state parks? People are free to go to a state park, or to a private park.
How in the world this is different than a XXX domain which is marked for adults only?
Because if 99% of all adult websites worldwide don't opt for the xxx domain only (and we'd be lucky if 25% went for this), this doesn't really do anything to keep kids from easily running into it at any point. And no, you can't make it mandatory, not until we take over the world.
If it was made mandatory for all pr0n sites to go under.xxx or.sex I think it would be much better. First of all it would be very easy to prevent access by kids. Second it would be easier for pervs to find porn, making porn sites more money.
Thirdly, we get to bomb the other 95% of the world in order to get them to also comply with the USA's ultra-conservative viewpoint on pornography. Or, we could create a giant firewall of non-compliant countries like China. Either way, we win!
It doesn't do anything to the rest of the Internet as it is now, so if *.kids.us is a good thing, parents will use it. If it turns out not to be as good in practice, they won't, and they haven't lost anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that just shows your lack of understanding of the speech-to-text field.
Do a little reading on the topic.
Seems like it's not over-engineering. This is less steps than speech-to-text as far as I can see.
You have to record the speech and convert those sounds into phonemes. Now all you do is use the picture(s) that go with that phoneme, which is going to be more or less consistent.
With speech-to-text you have to use probability and word banks to figure out what the heck words those phonemes are supposed to go with, which is the hardest part by far, because spelling and grammar is so inconsistent. That requires a lot more time and computing power, and you are prone to a bunch more mistakes of course.
This "gruntled = happy" extrapolation is specious, but if it really starts to become widespread, then "gruntled" really will mean "happy". Just like the word "irregardless" is on the brink of official acceptance (god help us).
I think both of those sound very, very stupid-- but what are you gonna do?
That's evil medical school, thank you very much.
Yeah, I agree with your modification of my analogy, although I think it can be shown how easily it can be done and cause public outcry without giving excessive insight into how it is carried out. I think in this case, more info than necessary was given.
I think both the originator of the hole, as well as those who put gratuitous and dangerous info into public forums, are being irresponsible.
Heck, I'd like to see things like this tarnishing MS's reputation. I just don't think it needs to be at the expense of Joe computer user.
Now, that sounds like it means that if you tell someone something that is beyond the scope of their understanding or knowledge, they will believe you, but if it is more tangible/testable to them, they'll be more critical.
I don't understand how this strengthens the idea that people's machines actually need to be compromised before they believe it could happen.
In the many, many average computer users I run across, it seems like if Microsoft sends out a patch, or Symantec/Norton says there is a problem, people *are* likely to believe it without evidence at all. That has been my observation.
But ultimately, I just don't understand the logic behind "until you kick them in the pants, they just won't believe that it'll hurt." I mean, the ultimate goal is to keep them from being metaphorically kicked in the pants, so if you have to actually carry out the kicking as part of the solution, well... it sounds pointless to me. Sounds like just punishing other people's lack of knowledge for your amusement/satisfaction.
I feel like the hardcore crackers already know about this one, as well as a lot of admins. By giving out specific exploit info you are not helping them, nor (if you agree with what I said above) are you helping Joe User. I feel like you are helping some foolish script kiddies that might otherwise not have a clue or put forth the effort and possibly causing the exploit to actually be exploited more often.
I just think making a big public stink over the problem and giving vague info on it publicly is still going to motivate MS as well as anything else (IMO).
What I mean is, the actual neglect isn't what truly does the harm, but the act itself. Just like a security guard falling asleep isn't *actually* the harm itself-- the harm is when this allows someone to sneak in and rob the place.
It is for this reason that I find the aiding of the bad result (going to a public place and announcing the guard is asleep, say) to be no better than the guard who fell asleep. You're both aiding the bad guys, only the person who gives them the tip off is even more directly helping them. Both are in the wrong.
Obviously no. But again, in terms of actual cause and effect, it wasn't Ford's laziness that *causes* the explosions, it is just gross neglect that doesn't stop it from happening. I think publicly saying there is a problem like that is a good idea. Explaining how to exploit the problem and blow the tank up maliciously is exacerbating the problem and making *potential* harm into real harm.
So, have you stopped beating your wife? (But seriously, I think I clarified already above.)
The only thing I would want to be different in what you described is that, instead of getting on the news and explaining how to exploit this door problem, I think he should explain there is a problem with the locking mechanism on the door, and that's all.
He shouldn't say "Here is how you do it. You twist this nob like so and press this in and then turn counter-clockwise 10 degrees and then turn quickly clockwise..." and so on.
I don't see how this extended explanation helps the average person (those who are lock experts and hardcore burglars already know/know where to find out). But I do see how some stupid kids, angry husbands, curious people or others that don't usually spend time trying to get into people's houses might just do it because it is presented right in front of their face.
That's where I think it's too far (although my analogy from before was a bit off).
Well, I basically agree. I mean, I think Bugtraq does a really good service by publicly pointing out problems. And pointing out problems in the police force to effect change there is a good idea too. I just think there is a definite middle ground.
The analogy was a little off, but my point is that publicly stating there is a crucial problem is different than showing how to exploit it. I think giving very direct info on how to carry out said bug steps beyond the middle ground.
In that respect, it feels like the plan is to make MS's exploits do harm to people and ruin MS's reputation, so people will leave the platform.
(I bet some people here would openly admit that's the case, but that's a different subject altogether.)
Naturally I'm not saying it should be illegal for Bugtraq to do this if they want, so I don't see how it's a free speech issue.
I'm just saying I doubt they are helping anything by being so specific, when they could just say the problem exists without giving people the means to impliment it.
Does this not sound pretty absurd? That's like saying, "the police in my town are lazy and aren't cracking down on crime. That's why we need to start committing crimes left and right and encouraging others to do the same until the cops are motivated enough."
Ummm, you do realize that in the meantime, you are committing crimes and screwing up innocent people's lives right? You do realize that it isn't the laziness of MS that *actually* does harm, but the fact that it allows malicious people to do bad things? Doing the malicious thing itself or helping people directly to do that is a heck of a lot worse than anything MS might be doing.
Uhhh... you do realize that you have to count your own body weight onto that 95 lbs... right??
It doesn't have a parking brake? Seriously. That seems like a very logical thing to have. Forget voice recognition or anything else. I want to be certain each time I park this thing that it stays put. I wonder why they wouldn't have something like this in it? Too obvious?
Maybe the non-prototype consumer version does have it, who knows.
Just recently you took part in a massive paintball charity match in Joliet, IL for your "Ahead with Horses" charity, in which you, as Captain Kirk, led the Federation against a team of Klingons and the Borg. It sounded like an amazing idea!
So, what I'm wondering is, how did it go? Did you enjoy paintball (and reprising your "Captain Kirk" role)? Also, I heard mention of the entire thing being was to be documented in a video. Is that still in the works, and if so, where can one purchase it?
I agree, bringing in religion/morality to the government is bad.
I don't know that the state is truly taking a moral stance in this case-- they are leaving that to the company that maintains the domain. And hopefully, the opt-in nature of this approach means that that company doesn't have too much power. If they stray too far off below or above the average morality level, people won't use the service.
So, really, this domain ought to represent the average morality level (which, in America, might be really screwed up anyway, but I'm not sure how to be more fair).
Maybe it won't end up that way at all, who knows. Sounds possible though.
My argument is "it's opt-in so it's not a bad thing" (an important distinction), and it's IMO a good thing for other reasons like what I touched on above.
Then, if in practice it doesn't turn out to be as useful as in theory (holes in the protection, too restrictive, etc.), we will learn that by people not wanting to use it, but the rest of the Internet isn't hurt by this.
If we have to wait to act until we've found a Sure Thing, then we'll never get anywhere. I think this has a good shot with a low penalty for failure.
Care to complete that thought with some support? How would this be different from, say, laws protecting things like state parks? People are free to go to a state park, or to a private park.
Honestly, what you said is completely specious.
If you're using a browser that is set up to be restricted to kids.us in the first place, those outside links aren't going to work, are they?
I mean, jeez, otherwise the kid could just type a non-kids.us URL into address field.
This is only bad censorship if you consider the children's secion of the library being totally devoid of porno magazines to also be bad.
It doesn't do anything to the rest of the Internet as it is now, so if *.kids.us is a good thing, parents will use it. If it turns out not to be as good in practice, they won't, and they haven't lost anything.