WAAS IS a form a differential GPS. And it is helpful, yes, but the poster was trying to be clear about much turning off SA helped.
DGPS is more a concept than anything (use nearby readings to cancel out as many forms of GPS error as possible), and can provide anywhere from WAAS-level accuracy to centimeter-level accuracy if you're willing to take readings over several days and process them on a computer after the fact.
Even if didn't come physically close to one of the satellites, it's still pretty frightening that the asteroid is coming as close to us as our geostationary satellites are.
Also note that geosynchronous orbit is at 42,250 km. Which means this asteroid is potentially coming very close to some of the satellites we've put up there.
Just so somebody else doesn't have to look this up, geosynchronous orbit is at 19,323 nautical miles, while the various radar and broadband blimps are proposed to be at around 12 miles up. So satellites have an inherent 100ms delay each way, the blimp version would only have a one-way delay of 0.06 ms.
And isn't the canonical counterexample of that slashdot.org? When it started and only had a hundred subscribers, it might have even been losing money for CmdrTaco. Once it got bigger, ads started generating more and more money and then OSDN stepped in. Should slashdot at that point be forced out of their.org name?
It's a mushy complicated world... maybe we need fewer hard categorizations, not more. What if I want to be a mostly hetero guy with slight gay inclinations, married to someone who thinks it's fine to occasionally dip into brief outside relationships?
I'm wasn't trying to advocate for any specific solution, just noting that it seems like there's nothing keeping the top spammers from sending out greater and greater numbers of emails every year. If speeders went 75mph this year and 90 next year and 105 the year after, you'd start to get worried, no? There a number of things keeping people from going arbitrarily fast (police officers giving tickets and possibly jail time, higher insurance premiums), and similarly there's probably a combination of things that will eventually at least make spam reach an equilibrium.
As long as the economics of spam mean that there's nearly nothing stopping more people from sending it, virtually guaranteeing that the signal/noise ratio of my mailbox will go down for the rest of time, I'm against it. Until that can be fixed (legislatively, technically, whatever), I think most spammers will be hated, independant of whatever they might be selling or whoever might be buying it.
I don't know much about canadian law, but in the US, names can't be covered under copyright law, only trademark law... eg. people are allowed greater use of other people's names than copyright law would allow, but not to the extent where people think you're selling a product under someone else's brand.
And even IF it were true that most spammers were offshore, most retailers who employ spammers would be from inside the US because it's not cost-effective to charge customers for international shipping. So legislation isn't a dead-end with regards to spam, especially since there's a credit-card paper trail to follow.
Is there nothing in Windows that provides standard library functions to C users? Given that Microsoft's MO is to put their hooks in any API they can possibly find, does such a library exist in windows?
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups? Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their DFSG rights, it's OK if there are other people who can do more. For example, if a work were distributed to everyone under the GPL, but elementary school teachers were given the extra right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source code, it would still be DFSG-Free.
warp the letters so programs have to actually use OCR techniques instead of simple byte-matching (currently all "A"s have the exact same shape which is trivial to detect due to the small number of hard-edged pixels)
alpha-blend the background... currently you can easily remove the background because it's the same color all the way across and all the way down (roughly speaking; you have to skip pixels on the horizontal, but it's still trivial)
don't make the letters be the same color all the way across, contiguous pixel areas are too easy to recognize (better yet, apply randomness to the whole image)
don't use a clearly different set of colors for the background vs. the text
Was this actually a challenge by the authors? It was trivial to break, and just about every other site on the internet that uses munged letters uses the above methods.
Is education/research what caused america to rise to power during WW1 and after? Or was it geographic isolation? Or a large area of people working together under similar laws? Or luck? Or...
Also, they appear to use different colors for the background vs. the text. If you convert the colors to hue/saturation/brightness, the brightness of the letters seem to be in the 40-60% range, while the background seems to be in the 79-96% range.
Not only that, but the background is actually quite repetitive. The vertical lines are the same color all the way up and down, so you could find some bounds of the letters by where there's a different color. And the horizontal lines show through on every other pixel and are the same color all the way across... so there's at least some more information there too.
So, basically it's like everything else in security... if the scheme isn't designed by PhDs or government agencies with very solid security experience, or it isn't at least internally peer-reviewed thoroughly, it's very likely to have holes in it that will be exploited in short order.
I'd think you'd still want some sort of protection for unreleased works, since unlike normal property, once someone takes it, the horse is out of the barn and not coming back. I'm not enough of a lawyer to be able to say if trade secret law is applicable to unreleased books or not.
That's always been the case with copyright, no? People can copyright things (well, it's automatic AFAIK) just for protection, but that doesn't mean that they can't choose to limit distribution however they want. Authors can choose to not release books, software license can state that the licensed programs can't be used for commercial purposes, etc etc. Is it a bad thing that a writer gets to control whether their work is released or not?
(yes, it's a problem that there's a monopoly, but anybody should get to choose to not offer their stuff to you)
mikeophile isn't talking about infecting cable modems per-se (eg. he wasn't suggesting running arbitrary code on the processor inside cable modems). If a virus changed the DOCSIS cfg file, it would be more akin to killing any processes that look like known firewall software (something they do already), just to enhance the effectiveness of the PC-based infection. If it's an easy thing to do, at least a few viruses would do eventually do it. I'm just not sure it's that trivial to do, at least in an automated fashion that would work for a reasonable number of computers.
For one, aren't there enough ISP- and cable-modem-specific issues with updating the CFG file (eg. different community strings and cable-modem IPs) that one virus is unlikely to work for a majority of cable modem connections?
For two, it'd be pretty trivial for the cable company to detect the change and cut off that connection at the CO, limiting the damage to just the users on the same physical cable connection, no?
Slashdot Mirror
DGPS is more a concept than anything (use nearby readings to cancel out as many forms of GPS error as possible), and can provide anywhere from WAAS-level accuracy to centimeter-level accuracy if you're willing to take readings over several days and process them on a computer after the fact.
Even if didn't come physically close to one of the satellites, it's still pretty frightening that the asteroid is coming as close to us as our geostationary satellites are.
Also note that geosynchronous orbit is at 42,250 km. Which means this asteroid is potentially coming very close to some of the satellites we've put up there.
Just so somebody else doesn't have to look this up, geosynchronous orbit is at 19,323 nautical miles, while the various radar and broadband blimps are proposed to be at around 12 miles up. So satellites have an inherent 100ms delay each way, the blimp version would only have a one-way delay of 0.06 ms.
- We need a return to strictly descriptive TLDs.
And isn't the canonical counterexample of that slashdot.org? When it started and only had a hundred subscribers, it might have even been losing money for CmdrTaco. Once it got bigger, ads started generating more and more money and then OSDN stepped in. Should slashdot at that point be forced out of theirIt's a mushy complicated world... maybe we need fewer hard categorizations, not more. What if I want to be a mostly hetero guy with slight gay inclinations, married to someone who thinks it's fine to occasionally dip into brief outside relationships?
I'm wasn't trying to advocate for any specific solution, just noting that it seems like there's nothing keeping the top spammers from sending out greater and greater numbers of emails every year. If speeders went 75mph this year and 90 next year and 105 the year after, you'd start to get worried, no? There a number of things keeping people from going arbitrarily fast (police officers giving tickets and possibly jail time, higher insurance premiums), and similarly there's probably a combination of things that will eventually at least make spam reach an equilibrium.
As long as the economics of spam mean that there's nearly nothing stopping more people from sending it, virtually guaranteeing that the signal/noise ratio of my mailbox will go down for the rest of time, I'm against it. Until that can be fixed (legislatively, technically, whatever), I think most spammers will be hated, independant of whatever they might be selling or whoever might be buying it.
I don't know much about canadian law, but in the US, names can't be covered under copyright law, only trademark law... eg. people are allowed greater use of other people's names than copyright law would allow, but not to the extent where people think you're selling a product under someone else's brand.
And even IF it were true that most spammers were offshore, most retailers who employ spammers would be from inside the US because it's not cost-effective to charge customers for international shipping. So legislation isn't a dead-end with regards to spam, especially since there's a credit-card paper trail to follow.
Is there nothing in Windows that provides standard library functions to C users? Given that Microsoft's MO is to put their hooks in any API they can possibly find, does such a library exist in windows?
It's a NYT story about google, but without the google no-reg link, heh.
- 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) FAQ:The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
- Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups? Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
Makes a whole lot of sense to me.A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their DFSG rights, it's OK if there are other people who can do more. For example, if a work were distributed to everyone under the GPL, but elementary school teachers were given the extra right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source code, it would still be DFSG-Free.
- warp the letters so programs have to actually use OCR techniques instead of simple byte-matching (currently all "A"s have the exact same shape which is trivial to detect due to the small number of hard-edged pixels)
- alpha-blend the background... currently you can easily remove the background because it's the same color all the way across and all the way down (roughly speaking; you have to skip pixels on the horizontal, but it's still trivial)
- don't make the letters be the same color all the way across, contiguous pixel areas are too easy to recognize (better yet, apply randomness to the whole image)
- don't use a clearly different set of colors for the background vs. the text
Was this actually a challenge by the authors? It was trivial to break, and just about every other site on the internet that uses munged letters uses the above methods.That's why I said asked how similar it was to the US... Because, yeah, it's easily argued that the US has a ways to go itself.
Is education/research what caused america to rise to power during WW1 and after? Or was it geographic isolation? Or a large area of people working together under similar laws? Or luck? Or...
How are the civil rights, news neutrality, and rule of law as applies to business/political leaders over there? Is it similar to the US?
Also, they appear to use different colors for the background vs. the text. If you convert the colors to hue/saturation/brightness, the brightness of the letters seem to be in the 40-60% range, while the background seems to be in the 79-96% range.
So, basically it's like everything else in security... if the scheme isn't designed by PhDs or government agencies with very solid security experience, or it isn't at least internally peer-reviewed thoroughly, it's very likely to have holes in it that will be exploited in short order.
At my school, they called it "volume licensing" and charged $5 per CD to students. They could have just done away with pretense and charged a penny.
Antiword + ps2pdf = word to .pdf converter
I'd think you'd still want some sort of protection for unreleased works, since unlike normal property, once someone takes it, the horse is out of the barn and not coming back. I'm not enough of a lawyer to be able to say if trade secret law is applicable to unreleased books or not.
(yes, it's a problem that there's a monopoly, but anybody should get to choose to not offer their stuff to you)
mikeophile isn't talking about infecting cable modems per-se (eg. he wasn't suggesting running arbitrary code on the processor inside cable modems). If a virus changed the DOCSIS cfg file, it would be more akin to killing any processes that look like known firewall software (something they do already), just to enhance the effectiveness of the PC-based infection. If it's an easy thing to do, at least a few viruses would do eventually do it. I'm just not sure it's that trivial to do, at least in an automated fashion that would work for a reasonable number of computers.
For one, aren't there enough ISP- and cable-modem-specific issues with updating the CFG file (eg. different community strings and cable-modem IPs) that one virus is unlikely to work for a majority of cable modem connections?
For two, it'd be pretty trivial for the cable company to detect the change and cut off that connection at the CO, limiting the damage to just the users on the same physical cable connection, no?
Buy on rumors, sell on news?