Re:Shame it's a rubbish report
on
The BBC On RMT
·
· Score: 1
I think the report made it fairly clear that the process is banned and it mentioned how many accounts are frequently deleted because of it.
You have to remember that the report was on national news so a large proportion of the report really had to be spent introducing not just gold farming, but the entire game and its format (i.e. what a MMORPG is) etc. as most people watching probably had no idea what WoW is, let alone gold farming.
National News coverage on the important issue
on
The BBC On RMT
·
· Score: 1
I was really surprised to see this on the national news, especially since BBC news is by far and above the most popular nightly news program in the UK (undoubtedly due to its lack of commercials).
It was kind of amusing, the studio news readers (and probably most the country) didn't really understand the report, although the guy actually presenting the report thankfully obviously knew what he was talking about.
Not one of those "exploits" actually allows an attacker to change someone's vote.
1) Dos could be annoying but unlikely as the website could be only made accessible form within the UK. The election close could easily be delayed if necessary and DoS attacks can be dealt with anyway.
2) completely irrelevant unless using a deeply flawed design.
3) Same as 2, and not really a problem for a centralized system as would surely be used.
Last.fm utilizes even greater user customization, basing its music on the user's entire music library. It is still server-side (even the stand-alone player, I believe) so I bet they will be pleased!
those are kept in-check because there's no anonymity and both the bankers and the customers can check their statements and trace all activities back to their account numbers.
So um why not do the same with online voting?
This would be easily done in the U.K. as all ballot papers already have a reference number written on them by the person manning the polling station which identifies the voter. Such a reference could be used in the exact same as an account number is used to add traceability to online banking. If people were concerned that their vote may have gone to someone other than who they wished to vote for, then they could log in to the voting website in the days after the election and check.
If a log-in code of sufficient length is sent via the post and the usual e-commerce security techniques are followed, then state one way the system could be exploited?
Preventing trojans from automatically voting would be trivial.
Actually voting can be made secure, the only thing that is impossible is for it to be anonymous and secure. However since voting in the UK isn't actually anonymous anyway (ballot papers have a personally identifiable reference number to prevent fraud), this point is mute.
I agree there are some highly qualified physicians and researchers who say that but the problem is that there is just so little definitive evidence for it. The referenced study in the article is another piece of evidence but the evidence pool is still small.
The problem is that almost always, people who get "a lot of sun" tend to be fit & active people who get fresh air etc. whereas people who don't get any sun tend to be overweight, inactive and each junk food, which are well-known causes of so many diseases and cancers. Whether the health benefits are down to the sun or the activity / lifestyle has proven extremely difficult to identify.
Been saying it for years, but the skin nazis have been preaching (incorrectly) that moderate sun will cause cancer.
That's because moderate sun and sunbeds DO cause cancer. In many western countries skin cancer is the most common form of diagnosed cancer and the major cause cited is DNA damage caused by UV light. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerandresearch /cancers/nonmelanoma/?a=5441 explains it well (as do many other sources available). Advocating that increased sun exposure and artificial tanning beds in particular are health inducing is extremely dangerous and a gross over-simplification of established medical opinion.
From the quoted source:
Non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common cancer in the UK. [...] UV radiation is the major risk factor for skin cancer. The main source of UV is the sun, so people who work outdoors are at greater risk. But UV from sun beds can also increase your risk of skin cancer.
unfortunately the member states prefer to ignore this one.
This is where most people here completely misunderstand the EU. Member states implement EU directives via laws introduced by their own parliaments, with the wording of law therefore very much down to the individual country (with the exception of directives relating to the Common Agricultural Policy). A member state can't completely ignore an entire directive indefinitely, but they can water-down or tighten-up a directive as they see fit (the word "directive" should give that one away, as opposed to EU "regulations" which are directly enforcible).
All the posts on here implying that the passing of this directive now instantly means all EU countries have much stricter anti-piracy laws are simply wrong. The "good" EU countries like Sweden will all but ignore this law, whereas the "bastard" countries (like the UK, where I live, and who were largely behind this directive) will introduce even stricter controls then the directive calls for.
This is little more than a thinly veiled attempt by the EU to outlaw religion
This is why people who know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about shouldn't post.
The "European Convention on Human Rights" is a pivotal piece of EU legislation which was passed by the EU parliament and has influenced laws which have now been implemented by the governments of all EU states. A large and specific section demands "freedom of religion". To overturn this would require the complete upheaval of the European Convention on Human Rights to be agreed by every EU state.
To say the on-line enforcement of existing law would somehow entice 27 countries to throw out their human rights laws is utterly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of basic legislative principles (in any state, let alone the EU).
This is my point, since Win 98 / 2000 I can't really think of any major usability increase.
It seems to me that the upgrade cycle is an extremely artificial one with Microsoft and PC Vendors both working together to force people to upgrade when they really do not need or even particularly want to.
Take Windows Vista, it is basically a clone of Windows XP (with a few freeware apps built-in), yet somehow (I'm yet to figure out why) it consumes so much memory that a new computer is virtually required for anyone who's system is over a couple of years old (excluding extreme high-spec PCs). A new system = the Microsoft Tax, regardless of the fact that Windows Vista has just been purchased.
What I really don't understand is though, why does everyone seem completely willing (and almost eager) to let themselves be ripped off in this way every few years?
Why do computers in general need to get any faster these days?
Ten years ago I wouldn't believe I would ever ask such a question but I have been asking it recently as my retired parents are looking to buy a computer for the web, writing letters and emails. I've told them specifically "DO NOT BUY VISTA" (why on earth would anyone want that ugly memory-hog?), so I just can't think of a single reason why they need even one of the medium-spec machines.
Personally, I like my games, so "the faster the better" will probably always be key. But for the vast majority of people what is the point of a high-spec machine?
Surely a decent anti-spyware program is a much better choice.
I couldn't care less about any of this issue. The point is the post is a rambling rant which makes no coherent sense whatsoever, just like the one other "this explains global warming" post I've seen in this thread.
btw, if you actually do have accurate planetary climate figures for the entire solar system stretching back over the past century or so then you should contact NASA, you would be an instant multi-millionaire. Although I do suspect your just making it up.
You make the common mistake of referring to 'the internet' as an entity. The entire reason it can't be censored is because it isn't a single entity.
Single entities can - and commonly are - censored. The websites primarily involved in this dispute (Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca) have all been subject to either enforced or self-initiated censorship.
Imagine for a second being the person to receive that call. Are you going to remember that the bomb threat took 3 minutes to make, or 5? Will anybody remember that the bomb threat came at 8:02 or 8:09? It's not about the calls landing within a minute of each other, it's about calls that landed close to each other. It's understandable to make THESE mistakes...
I'm referring to the electronic logs of the calls which would surely have specified the call time and duration to the precise second or less.
What I don't udnerstand (and doesn't seem to be properly explained) is that surely the log of the phone call made by the 'kid' and the bomb threat won't exactly 1 hour apart to the second? Also, surely the phone calls logs would have showed different call duration figures.
If the kid has protested innocence and stated his earlier use of the phone, then by noticing the times were probably slightly off and that the call duration was almost certainly completely different, surely someone should have realised that a mistake had been made!
I agree that I would not want these people teaching my kids.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and serial abuser of said monopoly power with an operational philosophy/culture that encourages this. Google isn't.
With a highly over-inflated share price which they are yet to justify and a lucrative emerging market which they are set to dominate, Google is in an extremely similar position to Microsoft in the early/mid 80's just before they started all their monopolistic practises.
Remember back then, Microsoft (kinda like Google now) were often seen as "the good guys", challenging IBM and the other Unix vendors' dominance of the IT industry.
There are many competitors that do online advertising pretty well. And those are invisible to Joe Consumer, but not to those buying online advertising (hence the trade journals).
And they are?
I'm no on-line advertising consultant, but I am a professional web developer and so probably one of the more educated amongst the typical on-line advertising consumers. I still could not name another worthwhile online advertising service though besides Google, DoubleClick and Microsoft.
A Google/Doubleclick alliance would encompass nearly all non-Microsoft affiliated on-line advertising which would certainly give them - coupled with the almost ubiquitous google.com search engine - a monopoly position completely open to abuse.
Biofuels are simply not environmentally friendly in any way, shape or form. They are seen by some as a temporary solution to dwindling oil stocks. Not as the environmental saviour some idiots have imagined them to be.
"Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't, but almost every woman I've asked says she does. I recently heard that 10% of high school senior girls report having been raped. These are girls under 18."
I absolutely hate when people spurt out rape statistics like that in the context you are speaking of. I don't mean to underplay rape and I fully believe the figure you quote, but in almost every single instance of rape you are speaking of the girl will have known her attacker and in the vast majority of cases will have been engaging in some sort of intimate/sexual contact when the rape occurred (.
I'm not saying that makes teh rapes O.K. at all, but to then use that statistic when talking about girls getting raped by weirdos in parking lots is grossly misleading as such attacks are extremely rare. In fact most criminal studies show that you are more likely to be randomly beaten senseless as a guy in a parking lot by some drunken lunatic then a girl is to be raped by some pervert.
I don't think you can really say which type of attack is worse as it depends totally on the specific incident at hand (both may cause permanent physiological and/or physical injury), but needless to say, the drunken assaults won't be reported by the local media nearly as often as the lesser occurring rapes as they are 'sex' related and therefore an instant news item.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the report made it fairly clear that the process is banned and it mentioned how many accounts are frequently deleted because of it.
You have to remember that the report was on national news so a large proportion of the report really had to be spent introducing not just gold farming, but the entire game and its format (i.e. what a MMORPG is) etc. as most people watching probably had no idea what WoW is, let alone gold farming.
I was really surprised to see this on the national news, especially since BBC news is by far and above the most popular nightly news program in the UK (undoubtedly due to its lack of commercials).
It was kind of amusing, the studio news readers (and probably most the country) didn't really understand the report, although the guy actually presenting the report thankfully obviously knew what he was talking about.
Why are alkaline batteries and thermometers, not included in this article?
Also, it's the stupidity displayed by the authorities involved that is biggest public safety concern in my opinion!
Not one of those "exploits" actually allows an attacker to change someone's vote.
1) Dos could be annoying but unlikely as the website could be only made accessible form within the UK. The election close could easily be delayed if necessary and DoS attacks can be dealt with anyway.
2) completely irrelevant unless using a deeply flawed design.
3) Same as 2, and not really a problem for a centralized system as would surely be used.
Last.fm utilizes even greater user customization, basing its music on the user's entire music library. It is still server-side (even the stand-alone player, I believe) so I bet they will be pleased!
So um why not do the same with online voting?
This would be easily done in the U.K. as all ballot papers already have a reference number written on them by the person manning the polling station which identifies the voter. Such a reference could be used in the exact same as an account number is used to add traceability to online banking. If people were concerned that their vote may have gone to someone other than who they wished to vote for, then they could log in to the voting website in the days after the election and check.
If a log-in code of sufficient length is sent via the post and the usual e-commerce security techniques are followed, then state one way the system could be exploited?
Preventing trojans from automatically voting would be trivial.
Actually voting can be made secure, the only thing that is impossible is for it to be anonymous and secure. However since voting in the UK isn't actually anonymous anyway (ballot papers have a personally identifiable reference number to prevent fraud), this point is mute.
I agree there are some highly qualified physicians and researchers who say that but the problem is that there is just so little definitive evidence for it. The referenced study in the article is another piece of evidence but the evidence pool is still small.
The problem is that almost always, people who get "a lot of sun" tend to be fit & active people who get fresh air etc. whereas people who don't get any sun tend to be overweight, inactive and each junk food, which are well-known causes of so many diseases and cancers. Whether the health benefits are down to the sun or the activity / lifestyle has proven extremely difficult to identify.
That's because moderate sun and sunbeds DO cause cancer. In many western countries skin cancer is the most common form of diagnosed cancer and the major cause cited is DNA damage caused by UV light. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerandresearc
From the quoted source:
This is where most people here completely misunderstand the EU. Member states implement EU directives via laws introduced by their own parliaments, with the wording of law therefore very much down to the individual country (with the exception of directives relating to the Common Agricultural Policy). A member state can't completely ignore an entire directive indefinitely, but they can water-down or tighten-up a directive as they see fit (the word "directive" should give that one away, as opposed to EU "regulations" which are directly enforcible).
All the posts on here implying that the passing of this directive now instantly means all EU countries have much stricter anti-piracy laws are simply wrong. The "good" EU countries like Sweden will all but ignore this law, whereas the "bastard" countries (like the UK, where I live, and who were largely behind this directive) will introduce even stricter controls then the directive calls for.
This is why people who know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about shouldn't post.
The "European Convention on Human Rights" is a pivotal piece of EU legislation which was passed by the EU parliament and has influenced laws which have now been implemented by the governments of all EU states. A large and specific section demands "freedom of religion". To overturn this would require the complete upheaval of the European Convention on Human Rights to be agreed by every EU state.
To say the on-line enforcement of existing law would somehow entice 27 countries to throw out their human rights laws is utterly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of basic legislative principles (in any state, let alone the EU).
This is my point, since Win 98 / 2000 I can't really think of any major usability increase.
It seems to me that the upgrade cycle is an extremely artificial one with Microsoft and PC Vendors both working together to force people to upgrade when they really do not need or even particularly want to.
Take Windows Vista, it is basically a clone of Windows XP (with a few freeware apps built-in), yet somehow (I'm yet to figure out why) it consumes so much memory that a new computer is virtually required for anyone who's system is over a couple of years old (excluding extreme high-spec PCs). A new system = the Microsoft Tax, regardless of the fact that Windows Vista has just been purchased.
What I really don't understand is though, why does everyone seem completely willing (and almost eager) to let themselves be ripped off in this way every few years?
Yep, looks like it did.
Why do computers in general need to get any faster these days?
Ten years ago I wouldn't believe I would ever ask such a question but I have been asking it recently as my retired parents are looking to buy a computer for the web, writing letters and emails. I've told them specifically "DO NOT BUY VISTA" (why on earth would anyone want that ugly memory-hog?), so I just can't think of a single reason why they need even one of the medium-spec machines.
Personally, I like my games, so "the faster the better" will probably always be key. But for the vast majority of people what is the point of a high-spec machine?
Surely a decent anti-spyware program is a much better choice.
I bet this is the real cause behind global warming also.
I couldn't care less about any of this issue. The point is the post is a rambling rant which makes no coherent sense whatsoever, just like the one other "this explains global warming" post I've seen in this thread.
btw, if you actually do have accurate planetary climate figures for the entire solar system stretching back over the past century or so then you should contact NASA, you would be an instant multi-millionaire. Although I do suspect your just making it up.
My god, I haven't heard such incoherent rambling since the last anti-global warming post.
You make the common mistake of referring to 'the internet' as an entity. The entire reason it can't be censored is because it isn't a single entity.
Single entities can - and commonly are - censored. The websites primarily involved in this dispute (Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca) have all been subject to either enforced or self-initiated censorship.
I'm referring to the electronic logs of the calls which would surely have specified the call time and duration to the precise second or less.
What I don't udnerstand (and doesn't seem to be properly explained) is that surely the log of the phone call made by the 'kid' and the bomb threat won't exactly 1 hour apart to the second? Also, surely the phone calls logs would have showed different call duration figures.
If the kid has protested innocence and stated his earlier use of the phone, then by noticing the times were probably slightly off and that the call duration was almost certainly completely different, surely someone should have realised that a mistake had been made!
I agree that I would not want these people teaching my kids.
What a load of exaggerations and half-truths.
For info: the Haiku website is http://haiku-os.org/
When will people listen???
Biofuels are simply not environmentally friendly in any way, shape or form. They are seen by some as a temporary solution to dwindling oil stocks. Not as the environmental saviour some idiots have imagined them to be.
"Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't, but almost every woman I've asked says she does. I recently heard that 10% of high school senior girls report having been raped. These are girls under 18."
I absolutely hate when people spurt out rape statistics like that in the context you are speaking of. I don't mean to underplay rape and I fully believe the figure you quote, but in almost every single instance of rape you are speaking of the girl will have known her attacker and in the vast majority of cases will have been engaging in some sort of intimate/sexual contact when the rape occurred (.
I'm not saying that makes teh rapes O.K. at all, but to then use that statistic when talking about girls getting raped by weirdos in parking lots is grossly misleading as such attacks are extremely rare. In fact most criminal studies show that you are more likely to be randomly beaten senseless as a guy in a parking lot by some drunken lunatic then a girl is to be raped by some pervert.
I don't think you can really say which type of attack is worse as it depends totally on the specific incident at hand (both may cause permanent physiological and/or physical injury), but needless to say, the drunken assaults won't be reported by the local media nearly as often as the lesser occurring rapes as they are 'sex' related and therefore an instant news item.