You've missed something. The porn site in question can also be a cracked machine
Of course it could be. But has anyone ever bothered to put it into practice? Not that I've ever heard of. It's just not worth the hassle. And regardless of how you host them, the captchas themselves, at least for big sites, are distinctive enough to indicate exactly which sites are being targetted. If I was in charge of GMail security, I'd be watching for these and the moment one appeared take action. (What action? I don't know -- set their own bot to attack the cracker site and poison its results?)
I agree. When media whores like Dawkins can't go five minutes without rambling something about how science disproves all religions
Have you actually read any of Dawkins' books? He's written at least nine, only one I think concentrates on religion. The rest are mostly about how evolution works, religion is not an issue at all. The most recent book, "The God Delusion" apparently is about religion, but it really is not the focus of the body of his work.
everyone has to grow up, chill out, and (in the case of assholes) shut up, especially with the whole anti-religious shtick.
Dawkins has been a target of creationists for quite a while. Get those assholes to shut up first.
Well, it wasn't on a porn site, but I've done proxying of captchas (Proof of Concept) for:
Yes, obviously it COULD be done, but I have never heard any evidence that it has been put into practice. As I said, it exposes too much about the cracker and what he is attacking.
The translation given on the page is quite precise. I was going to post a translation on Slashdot but then saw that they did a great job themselves.
Perhaps if you alrady read the Russian. An an English speaker, to me the "translation" given was pretty opaque, and I saw no implication that it was instructions for human solutions.
one technique that has been used in the past, is that porn websites will have their registration page just be a proxy for a registration page on a site they want to spam. people register and they get their captchas done for free.
So do you have a URL? I thought not.
I don't think that has ever really been used. Heard it suggested many times, never a link or reference to any site that really did it. For one thing, it would invite attack, poisoning, retaliation from those being cracked. Simpler just to pay some sweatshop in India a few cents per code solved.
Unfortunately, it's HumanPower(TM). About 3/4 of the way down TFA, they show a web page with instructions (in Russian) for the people who get paid to read the CAPTCHAs.
I doubt it.
TFA says this is a service SELLING captcha breaking. If it was human powered, I'd expect it to do much better than the 20% they cite.
Soooo, you want your TV shows to be totally and 100% factually accurate? Because most cops sit around in their patrol cars waiting for people to speed by so they can give them tickets. Would that pass muster for all of you Slashdot "it's gotta be accurate" assholes?
No, the point being argued is the claim that these shows WERE accurate. They're not, in ANY way, scientifically, procedurally, mathematicallly, medically or logically.
How entertaining they are is a separate issue. No one wants to watch a boring show. What is annoying is when the producers solemnly talk about how authentic and fact checked they are, when they are obviously 90% fantasy.
Actually all three of those shows have high viewer numbers because they do try for factual correctness. CSI does speed things up....
Their basic procedure is fantasy. How many forensics investigators arrest and interrogate suspects, for instance? Their "comper enhanced" images are legenday in bogosity. And the millions of dollars spent to solve every crime would bankrupt any police department in the country.
Their "high viewer numbers" have not a thing to do with accuracy. Every week a puzzle is presented, red herrings are trailed in the first half, the villain is confronted and arrested at the end. That's a fairy tale, not reality; that's why they're popular.
I am not sure this person wanted a real answer. His "requirements" started with FOSS on Linux - which is NOT the way you specify requirements.
It is however likely to get him published on "Ask Slashdot". I long ago stopped believing that any of these "How do I..." questions had any relation to reality. Most are carefully crafted to give the Slashdot crown an opportunity to make posts about their usual obsessions. Almost all are effectively anonymous and have no way to confirm the "facts" , if any, of the situation, none ever have any follow up to say what was actually done and how it worked out.
I am not aware of any definition of "privilege", even in specialized fields, which would include actions which you are forced to take against your will.
Just because it is an obligation does not make it any less a privilege. I am unaware of any definition of privilege that precludes it being an obligation.
Off the top of my head, many of the duties of a monarch would fall into this category.
Oxford Dictionary: privilege, n.
b. The special licence, prerogative, or immunity attaching to a specified office or rank. Also fig. and in extended use.
but to be forced to vote is, indeed, quite the opposite.
"Forced"? No one holds a gun to your head. If you're going to be pedantic about definitions and precise meanings, "forced" is not appropriate. You have a duty to vote. If you fail to do so, you will be be sent a letter asking you to explain why. At worst, you will pay a fine of about $20.
Wait a minute, isn't something that's mandatory the exact opposite of a privilege?
No. It's a privilege, a consequence of being an Australian citizen. It's also an obligation. They're not the same thing. Some other things one is obliged to do (eg, pay taxes) would be hard to describe as a privilege, but I see no contradiction in saying that voting is a privilege.
I return the camera to you before you even notice it missing.
Well, if you can break into the house twice without being detected, you could just stash a pile of kiddie porn in the closet and/or on the PC and make an anonymous tip. Who cares about the magic iris watermark.
"Don't want these photos of kiddie porn signed with your iris? Put ten million dollars in non-consecutive unmarked bills in a brown paper bag under the mailbox at 5th and Rochester."
Am I missing something?
Yeah. Why would anyone pay you? It's obviously trivial to spoof. Go ahead and get yourself locked up for 1) forgery 2) extortion 3) making kiddie porn -- good for 20 to life, I guess.
People seem to have got the idea this is meant to prove conclusively who took a photo. It's not, and can't. It's like a serial number, it can be faked or removed. The main idea is to stop careless abuse -- no one could say "Sorry, I had no idea it was your photo" if it's got your metadata in it. And if they have a version with the metadata removed, they have a lot more explaining to do.
Or worse. Your camera gets stolen and is used to photograph illegal activities. The images are then posted on the net with your watermark on them. Cops arrive at your door and your life is history.
Yes, they'd arrive at your door. Ask you some questions. No drama, unless the camera was still in your possession. Presumably you've reported the theft, for the insurance at least.
To download Project Dakota, you need to validate the computer you are downloading it on.
Please download this tool direct from Microsoft and paste the code into the box below.
Why am i seeing This page?
The developers believe that a WGA check and the new Terms and Conditions of download will prevent us from being shutdown by Microsoft
Therein lies the problem. It's like some guy showing up at your house,...
No it's not. Why do people keep arguing by analogy? Analogies are just handwaving, they prove nothing.
E.g., in this case it's not "your house" -- an idea that carries an irrelevant freight of the idea of invasion of personal space -- but a product being used by millions of people. The issue is not just that it affects the "wner", but all those who use the product, and who have some expectation that Real pays attention to their security (of course, legally, no doubt it's disclaimed comprehensively).
I would like to know both before I give them my details.
Plenty of disposable email sources. I use Sneakemail. I create a new one for every forum, registration, etc. They all redirect to my normal account, unless they start getting spam when I can delete or filter them.
Green is Red. Their idiotic socialism is the glue that binds them together, not any goodwill for "the planet."
Bullshit. I'm an environmentalist, and NOT a "socialist". Some of us try to reach a judgement on a scintific question based on the facts, not our political stance.
And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair.
You've never seen "Day of the Jackal" (the oringal version)? The asassin has a sniper rifle broken down and made into a set of crutches, for an old war veteran...
If you;re going to search people at all, you really should be searching people with large pieces of metal piping, no matter what medals they're wearing.
Yeah, I know, a "movie threat". Still, profiling people to wave through is as bad as profiling people to give a hard time to. Both allow an enemy to game the system
the question essentially is, "Was there a breach of contract?" Since we've established that there was one
Nothiing has been established. There is a pseudonymous post to Slashdot. No supporting documents. No screenshots. No names. Not a single detail that can be verified. This is not news, it's not even gossip.
"commonly believed you would die if you went that fast, but not I believe by scientists, but by the general public.... commonly mentioned in history programmes"
Still no citation. Second or third hand. Thus remains in the category urban myth.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it could be. But has anyone ever bothered to put it into practice? Not that I've ever heard of. It's just not worth the hassle. And regardless of how you host them, the captchas themselves, at least for big sites, are distinctive enough to indicate exactly which sites are being targetted. If I was in charge of GMail security, I'd be watching for these and the moment one appeared take action. (What action? I don't know -- set their own bot to attack the cracker site and poison its results?)
Have you actually read any of Dawkins' books? He's written at least nine, only one I think concentrates on religion. The rest are mostly about how evolution works, religion is not an issue at all. The most recent book, "The God Delusion" apparently is about religion, but it really is not the focus of the body of his work.
everyone has to grow up, chill out, and (in the case of assholes) shut up, especially with the whole anti-religious shtick.
Dawkins has been a target of creationists for quite a while. Get those assholes to shut up first.
Yes, obviously it COULD be done, but I have never heard any evidence that it has been put into practice. As I said, it exposes too much about the cracker and what he is attacking.
Perhaps if you alrady read the Russian. An an English speaker, to me the "translation" given was pretty opaque, and I saw no implication that it was instructions for human solutions.
So do you have a URL? I thought not.
I don't think that has ever really been used. Heard it suggested many times, never a link or reference to any site that really did it. For one thing, it would invite attack, poisoning, retaliation from those being cracked. Simpler just to pay some sweatshop in India a few cents per code solved.
I doubt it.
TFA says this is a service SELLING captcha breaking. If it was human powered, I'd expect it to do much better than the 20% they cite.
No, the point being argued is the claim that these shows WERE accurate. They're not, in ANY way, scientifically, procedurally, mathematicallly, medically or logically.
How entertaining they are is a separate issue. No one wants to watch a boring show. What is annoying is when the producers solemnly talk about how authentic and fact checked they are, when they are obviously 90% fantasy.
Their basic procedure is fantasy. How many forensics investigators arrest and interrogate suspects, for instance? Their "comper enhanced" images are legenday in bogosity. And the millions of dollars spent to solve every crime would bankrupt any police department in the country.
Their "high viewer numbers" have not a thing to do with accuracy. Every week a puzzle is presented, red herrings are trailed in the first half, the villain is confronted and arrested at the end. That's a fairy tale, not reality; that's why they're popular.
It is however likely to get him published on "Ask Slashdot". I long ago stopped believing that any of these "How do I..." questions had any relation to reality. Most are carefully crafted to give the Slashdot crown an opportunity to make posts about their usual obsessions. Almost all are effectively anonymous and have no way to confirm the "facts" , if any, of the situation, none ever have any follow up to say what was actually done and how it worked out.
But I give up, count yourself the winner if you like.
Just because it is an obligation does not make it any less a privilege. I am unaware of any definition of privilege that precludes it being an obligation.
Off the top of my head, many of the duties of a monarch would fall into this category.
Oxford Dictionary: privilege, n.
b. The special licence, prerogative, or immunity attaching to a specified office or rank. Also fig. and in extended use.
but to be forced to vote is, indeed, quite the opposite.
"Forced"? No one holds a gun to your head. If you're going to be pedantic about definitions and precise meanings, "forced" is not appropriate. You have a duty to vote. If you fail to do so, you will be be sent a letter asking you to explain why. At worst, you will pay a fine of about $20.
No. It's a privilege, a consequence of being an Australian citizen. It's also an obligation. They're not the same thing. Some other things one is obliged to do (eg, pay taxes) would be hard to describe as a privilege, but I see no contradiction in saying that voting is a privilege.
Trivial -- use robots.txt to tell Google not to, and it won't. And if it's pay-per-view, none of the web crawlers will be able to get it anyway.
These are the padawans I want to see; hot grits optional.
Well, if you can break into the house twice without being detected, you could just stash a pile of kiddie porn in the closet and/or on the PC and make an anonymous tip. Who cares about the magic iris watermark.
Yeah. Why would anyone pay you? It's obviously trivial to spoof. Go ahead and get yourself locked up for 1) forgery 2) extortion 3) making kiddie porn -- good for 20 to life, I guess.
People seem to have got the idea this is meant to prove conclusively who took a photo. It's not, and can't. It's like a serial number, it can be faked or removed. The main idea is to stop careless abuse -- no one could say "Sorry, I had no idea it was your photo" if it's got your metadata in it. And if they have a version with the metadata removed, they have a lot more explaining to do.
Yes, they'd arrive at your door. Ask you some questions. No drama, unless the camera was still in your possession. Presumably you've reported the theft, for the insurance at least.
No it's not. Why do people keep arguing by analogy? Analogies are just handwaving, they prove nothing.
E.g., in this case it's not "your house" -- an idea that carries an irrelevant freight of the idea of invasion of personal space -- but a product being used by millions of people. The issue is not just that it affects the "wner", but all those who use the product, and who have some expectation that Real pays attention to their security (of course, legally, no doubt it's disclaimed comprehensively).
Plenty of disposable email sources. I use Sneakemail. I create a new one for every forum, registration, etc. They all redirect to my normal account, unless they start getting spam when I can delete or filter them.
Not very; but that was the movie. My point was that a wheelchair could conceal all kinds of things, especially metal weapons -- guns, knives, etc.
Bullshit. I'm an environmentalist, and NOT a "socialist". Some of us try to reach a judgement on a scintific question based on the facts, not our political stance.
You've never seen "Day of the Jackal" (the oringal version)? The asassin has a sniper rifle broken down and made into a set of crutches, for an old war veteran...
If you;re going to search people at all, you really should be searching people with large pieces of metal piping, no matter what medals they're wearing.
Yeah, I know, a "movie threat". Still, profiling people to wave through is as bad as profiling people to give a hard time to. Both allow an enemy to game the system
Nothiing has been established. There is a pseudonymous post to Slashdot. No supporting documents. No screenshots. No names. Not a single detail that can be verified. This is not news, it's not even gossip.
Still no citation. Second or third hand. Thus remains in the category urban myth.