I liked faced passwords better
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
How strong are these passwords. For each blot, might you guess what somebody will see? Some seemed more obvious than others.
I like the face password system. With this system you remember some faces, something we are very good at doing. Then you are shown tablets of faces, around 16 of them. Your face is among them and you click on it -- 4 bits of data. You do this several times to generate a strong enough password.
The really interesting aspect of this system is, unless you are a skilled police sketch artist, you can't tell other people your password. Even if they torture you, you can't reveal it. Many people will find themselves unable to even describe the faces in their set, they just know them when they see them.
You might be able to go to the terminal and sketch or digitally photograph your faces to tell somebody else, but if this is used as an access control system, for example, with a guard watching you as you enter your code, it's hard to do. Thus the military is interested in such systems. But even if you don't care about the no-torture feature, you can generate memorable passwords that use an entirely different type of memory.
So the CPU does the decoding on this box? On the Tivo it's decoding hardware, which seems the way to go if you are not building a general purpose PC.
But in fact, no, you should get not dropped frames because you would not be pulling the video as you display it.
The high quality mpeg stream tends to be in the range of 5 to 8 megabits. Better quality compressors do much better than that, DVD quality can be had at 5 megabits with good compressors.
Anyway, the ethernet and fileserver should be capable of much more than that. So you start transferring the moment the program is selected and you build up a large buffer in RAM or on local disk (if you have local disk, but ideally you don't, you just have 512mb ram because it is cheap) and you decode from that.
Unless your machine is totally saturated you will not lose data.
Of course, as I noted, ideally, the mpeg decoder is on or in the TV, and all the PVR does is sling bits from the disk to the TV, which requires minimal CPU.
They seem to have their heads screwed on right. Customer centric, expandable design. Didn't see it said explicitly but I would hope you can mount the disks elsewhere on the network with samba so they don't have to make noise in the TV room.
Looks more likely to be expandable to dtv and hdtv too, though the latter is probably something that requires new hardware to output to the hdtv.
(What I want is a component architecture on 100mbit ethernet. The decoder should stick on the TV and take ethernet to it over which the compressed stream flows, is decoded, mixed with overlay, and put onto the monitor. Thus when you get a different type of TV standard, all you need is this decoder built into or slapped onto the TV.)
The only reason I don't want it is the MPAA wants to put DRM in it, but otherwise it should be digital all the way to the TV. Forget ugly protocols like firewire and USB which try to define the format of streams. Ethernet and IP all the way.
Tivo started out great but is starting to work in anti-customer ways, locking up their later boxes, letting Replay lead the way and be sued. It's good to see competition coming forward.
Ok, so if you don't think that the human cost is the reason for failure, why have all the micropayment systems never attained the goal of becoming a widely used net currency?
There have been many attempts at micropayment systems. Some with accounts. Some prepaid. Some with anonymous digital cash. They all have failed so far.
Paypal can do small payments (on non credit card transactions) but they don't push it and I doubt they make money on it. But at least they are a success.
I think there is something wrong with micropayments, they are not just waiting for somebody to come along and do it right. Projects like digicash, cybercash, first virtual, millicent, all had major funders backing them and good people.
There is a human cost to small payments, and you can't get rid of it. Computers can cheaply bill those fractional pennies but humans don't like thinking about them.
Why do commercial spammers spam? Well, for the ones who try it more than once, it's because somebody pays them to do it. Who pays them to spam you? The suckers who buy from them pay them to do it. Without that money the spammers would have little reason to spam.
So what you need to do is punish the spammer's customers, find them, out them and make them afraid.
The way to do this is simple. Just send out some really attractive spams. Offer legit products at irresistable prices. Have legit sites to back up that the offer is real and not too good to be true. Anybody who responds, however, is an evil spam funder, and they will give you all their ID information, which you can use to punish them for funding spammers!
I believe the frequency bands for 802.11b and other unlicenced spectrum were chosen because things like Microwave ovens put out a lot of noise in this band. As such, the band is useless to people who need no interference, and of course you don't need a radio licence for your oven, why should you need one for your cordless phone or lan?
So it is extremely unlikely the French military actually depend on not getting interference in this band. I presume they just are greedy and think they own something and don't want to give it up.
Depends what I am doing. Better would be to have their caller id flash up and I decide whether they go to voicemail or answer, which is in a way how a normal call works.
Always on is more than for web surfing of course, an the fact that packets are flying is no reason a call can't be made or requested. Plus you must disconnect to make a call.
BTW, this is a day old/. thread. Nobody reads these so no need to reply.
One thing that highly annoys me about our current Treo 300, at least with Sprint, is that it's not an always on data device.
GRRRRRRRR. Why don't they know this is what we want?
You must log in to surf the web or do IP, and while you are surfing, your phone is busy -- people can't ring you! And yet people said the Treo was doing a good job of PDA/Phone integration -- just shows how low the bar is there.
The Danger/Sidekick does always on. Is this entirely the carrier's fault, and do some carriers do it right with the Treo 300? Is there hope they will do it right with the 600?
This idea isn't so new or unique. It's been discussed a fair bit on the
ASRG mailing
list under the name "tempfailing".
First I heard of it was from Landon Noll and Mel Pleasant. It is
noted in brief as one of the techniques in
this plan to
end spam (though their plan, which did include the triplets, is
not laid out in full there.)
It is a worthwhile technique for a little while, and if spammers
were rational, would be worthwhile for some time to come. But
spammers are not rational, and already this technique is not as
useful as would be hoped.
My assumption is this is software combined with an edit list produced by the "cleaning" company.
The commercial skip in the Replay is software that looks for patterns but woudl you not defend a system where the commercials were spotted by human beings (more reliable anyway) and the timestamps were downloaded to control the FF?
You don't really think the EFF is championing censorship, do you?
The EFF promotes freedom to use technology. After filing a lawsuit to defend the right of a Replay TV owner to use a technology that does automatic fast forward over commercials, how could the EFF not defend a technology that does automatic fast forward over naked breasts? The copyright holder doesn't want you to FF over either of them of course, but should the law declare a difference here?
Defending free technology means you sometimes have to defend it being used for things you wouldn't like.
There is a pretty easy way to carry out your wish, namely to donate to the EFF, as I have done, and not just at the ordinary member level.
Lending your support is great, of course, but its the dollar donations that pay all the staff lawyers and technologists that write the briefs and carry out the court cases and all the other stuff that gets done. Can't do it yourself? Outsource it to the EFF.
The number I actually recalled was either 13% or 17% so I played it safe.
The revenue would come from taking some of that spectrum and selling it off, enough to cover the costs of providing cable/satellite to everybody else (basic service only) and the rest could become open spectrum.
It is a difficult question how to allocate the money but I would say to get it -- basic service only, local channels only -- you would have to not have cable/dbs right now, but have a TV and antenna.
In other words, no great benefit for getting it, because all it does is replace your antenna system, no new channels, no cable channels.
As soon as you want more channels than you could get OTA, you have to pay the same as everybody else.
I believe that today under 20% of homes get TV via over the air broadcasts. And the number is dropping. The rest get satellite or cable.
It's clear that if we opened up all that broadcast spectrum to unlicenced use, it could easily generate enough revenue to provide free satellite or cable for those few homes still with an antenna.
And just think of the huge value from getting all that spectrum for new technology, largely unlicenced uses.
Of course, the National Association of Broadcasters is one of the most powerful forces in the country. They think of that spectrum as "their property" even though they are blocking much more productive use. Same with the military.
Since their original papers, according to all posted reports. So I don't think you're really going to get the exact google number from a basic algorithm and this data set.
They also use terms that appear in links as a major key in ranking searches.
(Among other things.)
Not that it is not interesting to see these rankings, and note the most widely linked to sites on the net.
Which, by the way, after the obvious winners like Yahoo, include Adobe and Real networks, which have gotten immense numbers of sites to link to them with "Get acrobat reader" style links.
I've often wondered if the makeashorterlink and tinyurl folks are doing it just for the googlejuice.
In reverse, many sites now use javascript links in order to preserve their googlejuice.
You need to think of it another way. You can't say, "do you want to rent a movie tonight?" but you can say, "So, do you want to watch a movie tonight?" which is what you really want.
Yes, you had to pick, in advance, what movies you might like to see. But unlike the video store, you don't pick over what's not rented. You name exactly the movies you really want to see. Then the movie is already in your house, so when you say "do you want to see a movie" it's there. If you don't want to see one, it stays there until you do want to see one.
You may consider it a bug to have to pick what movies you are interested in before you get the urge to see a movie, but it strikes me as a feature. I already know what movies I am interested in (and if not, the net is the place I woudl go to look at reviews etc. anyway).
At the video store that matters not. What matters is what they have in stock, and it's very often not the movies I had in mind to watch.
So if the choice is, "Honey do you want to watch whatever's on hand at the video store tonight?" or "Honey, do you want to watch one of the 3 movies we really want to see that are in our box" I think the latter wins well.
Even more on the Tivo where you aren't without programming during the exchange period. (Though it only shows you movies that have made it to TV, and only if you catch them in your weekly browse of upcoming films.)
I have always felt of things like NetFlix, and even the Tivo, as a "poor man's video on demand."
You pick the movies you want, and some time, a few days later they are there to watch at your leisure, taking as long as you want, with pause, rewind FF.
Everything you want from video on demand except the ability to pick a movie right now and watch it right now.
Which turns out to be not so important after all. And it's a lot cheaper than putting in all those servers and 7 megabits to every home of highly reliable bandwidth.
Another example of the old adage that you should never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of magtapes, except this time it's a postal van full of DVDs.
Right, but what about overseas? I wish they let the customer see the trunk ID instead of "unavail" on caller-ID.
Phone spam will be coming from overseas, because you can now terminate in many parts of the USA for under a penny per minute. A lot more expensive than E-mail spam but cost effective for them because of the intrusiveness of it.
And VoIP spam won't even cost that much. Using 6 kilobit codecs, you can be making 250 simultaneous calls on a T1. At say 30 seconds per unsuccessful call, that amounts to 500 per minute, or 21 million per month, or,0005 cents per call.
Slashdot Mirror
How strong are these passwords. For each blot, might you guess what somebody will see? Some seemed more obvious than others.
I like the face password system. With this system you remember some faces, something we are very good at doing. Then you are shown tablets of faces, around 16 of them. Your face is among them and you click on it -- 4 bits of data. You do this several times to generate a strong enough password.
The really interesting aspect of this system is, unless you are a skilled police sketch artist, you can't tell other people your password. Even if they torture you, you can't reveal it. Many people will find themselves unable to even describe the faces in their set, they just know them when they see them.
You might be able to go to the terminal and sketch or digitally photograph your faces to tell somebody else, but if this is used as an access control system, for example, with a guard watching you as you enter your code, it's hard to do. Thus the military is interested in such systems. But even if you don't care about the no-torture feature, you can generate memorable passwords that use an entirely different type of memory.
So the CPU does the decoding on this box? On the Tivo it's decoding hardware, which seems the way to go if you are not building a general purpose PC.
But in fact, no, you should get not dropped frames because you would not be pulling the video as you display it.
The high quality mpeg stream tends to be in the range of 5 to 8 megabits. Better quality compressors do much better than that, DVD quality can be had at 5 megabits with good compressors.
Anyway, the ethernet and fileserver should be capable of much more than that. So you start transferring the moment the program is selected and you build up a large buffer in RAM or on local disk (if you have local disk, but ideally you don't, you just have 512mb ram because it is cheap) and you decode from that.
Unless your machine is totally saturated you will not lose data.
Of course, as I noted, ideally, the mpeg decoder is on or in the TV, and all the PVR does is sling bits from the disk to the TV, which requires minimal CPU.
They seem to have their heads screwed on right. Customer centric, expandable design. Didn't see it said explicitly but I would hope you can mount the disks elsewhere on the network with samba so they don't have to make noise in the TV room.
Looks more likely to be expandable to dtv and hdtv too, though the latter is probably something that requires new hardware to output to the hdtv.
(What I want is a component architecture on 100mbit ethernet. The decoder should stick on the TV and take ethernet to it over which the compressed stream flows, is decoded, mixed with overlay, and put onto the monitor. Thus when you get a different type of TV standard, all you need is this decoder built into or slapped onto the TV.)
The only reason I don't want it is the MPAA wants to put DRM in it, but otherwise it should be digital all the way to the TV. Forget ugly protocols like firewire and USB which try to define the format of streams. Ethernet and IP all the way.
Tivo started out great but is starting to work in anti-customer ways, locking up their later boxes, letting Replay lead the way and be sued. It's good to see competition coming forward.
I can stop anytime I want.
Ok, so if you don't think that the human cost is the reason for failure, why have all the micropayment systems never attained the goal of becoming a widely used net currency?
There have been many attempts at micropayment systems. Some with accounts. Some prepaid. Some with anonymous digital cash. They all have failed so far.
Paypal can do small payments (on non credit card transactions) but they don't push it and I doubt they make money on it. But at least they are a success.
I think there is something wrong with micropayments, they are not just waiting for somebody to come along and do it right. Projects like digicash, cybercash, first virtual, millicent, all had major funders backing them and good people.
There is a human cost to small payments, and you can't get rid of it. Computers can cheaply bill those fractional pennies but humans don't like thinking about them.
Why do commercial spammers spam? Well, for the ones who try it more than once, it's because somebody pays them to do it. Who pays them to spam you? The suckers who buy from them pay them to do it. Without that money the spammers would have little reason to spam.
So what you need to do is punish the spammer's customers, find them, out them and make them afraid.
The way to do this is simple. Just send out some really attractive spams. Offer legit products at irresistable prices. Have legit sites to back up that the offer is real and not too good to be true. Anybody who responds, however, is an evil spam funder, and they will give you all their ID information, which you can use to punish them for funding spammers!
That will stop 'em.
(For the satire impaired, that's what this is.)
I believe the frequency bands for 802.11b and other unlicenced spectrum were chosen because things like Microwave ovens put out a lot of noise in this band. As such, the band is useless to people who need no interference, and of course you don't need a radio licence for your oven, why should you need one for your cordless phone or lan?
So it is extremely unlikely the French military actually depend on not getting interference in this band. I presume they just are greedy and think they own something and don't want to give it up.
Depends what I am doing. Better would be to have their caller id flash up and I decide whether they go to voicemail or answer, which is in a way how a normal call works.
/. thread. Nobody reads these so no need to reply.
Always on is more than for web surfing of course, an the fact that packets are flying is no reason a call can't be made or requested. Plus you must disconnect to make a call.
BTW, this is a day old
Well, the caller is sent to voice mail, so it's just the luck of the draw then? Not very good.
One thing that highly annoys me about our current Treo 300, at least with Sprint, is that it's not an always on data device.
GRRRRRRRR. Why don't they know this is what we want?
You must log in to surf the web or do IP, and while you are surfing, your phone is busy -- people can't ring you! And yet people said the Treo was doing a good job of PDA/Phone integration -- just shows how low the bar is there.
The Danger/Sidekick does always on. Is this entirely the carrier's fault, and do some carriers do it right with the Treo 300? Is there hope they will do it right with the 600?
No spam ever? That even predates DNS.
See This Slashdot story
First I heard of it was from Landon Noll and Mel Pleasant. It is noted in brief as one of the techniques in this plan to end spam (though their plan, which did include the triplets, is not laid out in full there.)
It is a worthwhile technique for a little while, and if spammers were rational, would be worthwhile for some time to come. But spammers are not rational, and already this technique is not as useful as would be hoped.
Do a Google Search for Tempfailing especially in ASRG to see statistics etc.
My assumption is this is software combined with an edit list produced by the "cleaning" company.
The commercial skip in the Replay is software that looks for patterns but woudl you not defend a system where the commercials were spotted by human beings (more reliable anyway) and the timestamps were downloaded to control the FF?
You don't really think the EFF is championing censorship, do you?
The EFF promotes freedom to use technology. After filing a lawsuit to defend the right of a Replay TV owner to use a technology that does automatic fast forward over commercials, how could the EFF not defend a technology that does automatic fast forward over naked breasts? The copyright holder doesn't want you to FF over either of them of course, but should the law declare a difference here?
Defending free technology means you sometimes have to defend it being used for things you wouldn't like.
There is a pretty easy way to carry out your wish, namely to donate to the EFF, as I have done, and not just at the ordinary member level.
Lending your support is great, of course, but its the dollar donations that pay all the staff lawyers and technologists that write the briefs and carry out the court cases and all the other stuff that gets done. Can't do it yourself? Outsource it to the EFF.
Let them broadcast if they want, but let them do it in the same spectrum shared with everybody else, with the only rules being about power.
Let anybody put up their own TV station. There should be be blessed monopolies that are the only ones to have TV stations.
The number I actually recalled was either 13% or 17% so I played it safe.
The revenue would come from taking some of that spectrum and selling it off, enough to cover the costs of providing cable/satellite to everybody else (basic service only) and the rest could become open spectrum.
It is a difficult question how to allocate the money but I would say to get it -- basic service only, local channels only -- you would have to not have cable/dbs right now, but have a TV and antenna.
In other words, no great benefit for getting it, because all it does is replace your antenna system, no new channels, no cable channels.
As soon as you want more channels than you could get OTA, you have to pay the same as everybody else.
I believe that today under 20% of homes get TV via over the air broadcasts. And the number is dropping. The rest get satellite or cable.
It's clear that if we opened up all that broadcast spectrum to unlicenced use, it could easily generate enough revenue to provide free satellite or cable for those few homes still with an antenna.
And just think of the huge value from getting all that spectrum for new technology, largely unlicenced uses.
Of course, the National Association of Broadcasters is one of the most powerful forces in the country. They think of that spectrum as "their property" even though they are blocking much more productive use. Same with the military.
So it won't happen, but we can dream.
With all that high-tech media on the walls, you would never need to look at the Windows...
(Also rumored that the reason Gates built most of his house underground was to avoid pouring more money into windows.)
Since their original papers, according to all posted reports. So I don't think you're really going to get the exact google number from a basic algorithm and this data set.
They also use terms that appear in links as a major key in ranking searches.
(Among other things.)
Not that it is not interesting to see these rankings, and note the most widely linked to sites on the net.
Which, by the way, after the obvious winners like Yahoo, include Adobe and Real networks, which have gotten immense numbers of sites to link to them with "Get acrobat reader" style links.
I've often wondered if the makeashorterlink and tinyurl folks are doing it just for the googlejuice.
In reverse, many sites now use javascript links in order to preserve their googlejuice.
Very much a heisenberg phenomenon here.
You need to think of it another way. You can't say, "do you want to rent a movie tonight?" but you can say, "So, do you want to watch a movie tonight?" which is what you really want.
Yes, you had to pick, in advance, what movies you might like to see. But unlike the video store, you don't pick over what's not rented. You name exactly the movies you really want to see. Then the movie is already in your house, so when you say "do you want to see a movie" it's there. If you don't want to see one, it stays there until you do want to see one.
You may consider it a bug to have to pick what movies you are interested in before you get the urge to see a movie, but it strikes me as a feature. I already know what movies I am interested in (and if not, the net is the place I woudl go to look at reviews etc. anyway).
At the video store that matters not. What matters is what they have in stock, and it's very often not the movies I had in mind to watch.
So if the choice is, "Honey do you want to watch whatever's on hand at the video store tonight?" or "Honey, do you want to watch one of the 3 movies we really want to see that are in our box" I think the latter wins well.
Even more on the Tivo where you aren't without programming during the exchange period. (Though it only shows you movies that have made it to TV, and only if you catch them in your weekly browse of upcoming films.)
I have always felt of things like NetFlix, and even the Tivo, as a "poor man's video on demand."
You pick the movies you want, and some time, a few days later they are there to watch at your leisure, taking as long as you want, with pause, rewind FF.
Everything you want from video on demand except the ability to pick a movie right now and watch it right now.
Which turns out to be not so important after all. And it's a lot cheaper than putting in all those servers and 7 megabits to every home of highly reliable bandwidth.
Another example of the old adage that you should never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of magtapes, except this time it's a postal van full of DVDs.
Right, but what about overseas? I wish they let the customer see the trunk ID instead of "unavail" on caller-ID.
,0005 cents per call.
Phone spam will be coming from overseas, because you can now terminate in many parts of the USA for under a penny per minute. A lot more expensive than E-mail spam but cost effective for them because of the intrusiveness of it.
And VoIP spam won't even cost that much. Using 6 kilobit codecs, you can be making 250 simultaneous calls on a T1. At say 30 seconds per unsuccessful call, that amounts to 500 per minute, or 21 million per month, or
What ANI do you get on calls from phone switches (like the big telemarketers have) that don't transmit their ID?
My point however is that the phone system is not authenticated. If you get your own phone switch you provide what you want and it's trusted right now.