The whole point behind the Carnivore system is that the data is captured but not examined until you have a search warrant.
Schroeder's cat: If I have a copy of data I can't access, at what point is the data actually "seized"? When it is a copy of bits, or when it is examined and found to be data?
You missed the best part. The robot did diddly squat except test inputs using sensors.
Krister Wolff and Peter Nordin of Chalmers University of Technology built a robot with wings and then gave it random instructions through a computer at the rate of 20 per second.
So they built a robot, gave it sensors, then said, which works best, this? how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?
Big whoop. So they built a robot that can do a bubble sort.
And thats ignoring a basic flaw in the monkey analogy. Monkeys learn by imitation. Salt was not a developed taste, but knowing that certain water had salt IN IT required being thrown into it by an outside source.
I don't know of the exact experiment, but it's clear that what happened is that HUMANS taught them to add salt by dipping it in the water, then they taught this to their infants who learned by imitation. Almost all wild mammals will consume as much salt as they can find.
Problem solving doesn't denote intelligence. Any creature will use methods that have worked before to achieve similiar results. Intelligence is coming up with methods it has never seen used before and knowing in advance whether or not they are likely to work. Even human children fail many tests of intelligence until they are older, until they learn to communicate.
Consider Hellen Keller or feral children. They act as beasts until taught to communicate, then they suddenly jump into society with little splash. It isn't just genetics at work here.
Re:Been around for a while?
on
Gyroscopic Mouse
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Silly man, those where "pucks". Entirely different. See, these are MICE.
Differences include what order they occur in alphabetically and number of letters.
Your *friends* don't have to give them the address. They are *lying* about this. You *give* them the address of your *friends* then they bug them if you fall for it, and *maybe* one of your friends fell for it. Most *likely* your *friend* was a spambot that *sold* them your *email* because they discovered you interchange *apostrophes* and *quotation marks* when *emphasizing* *unnecessarily*.
Agreed. A surprisingly large amount of information you "see" every day is completely made up based on your preexisting assumption of size of objects at given distances. Movie people use this constantly to produce amazing effects.
Unless of course you also believe you "saw" Ian McKellen towering over Elijah Wood. What they did was just like what the plane did, even if unintentionally.
You saw an object that your brain decided was close because of it's size, and the fact the other reference it had (the building you were in/on) was similiar size and close. After it decided the distance, it reevaluated the size, and said, Hey, that must be HUGE, since it's so close and still seems big. After that, it said, man, that must be silent since I can't hear it and it is so close. Finally, your brain decided it was moving really slow (or really fast depending on decided distance)
This functionality isn't present in Mozilla, even though it would solve many of the incompatibilities between Mozilla and the rest of the internet. The developers may have decided that accurate traffic stats are more important than a few rendering inconsistencies, which is a completely reasonable position. In light of their goals to push web standards, I suspect that giving the end-user the ability to masquerade as a less-compliant browser may simply seem antithetical to their purposes and philosophy. Still, I personally would have preferred a "spoofing" feature over accurate statistics, but I'm not the one writing an underdog rendering engine.
I thought there WAS a way to spoof the User Agent with one of the javascript settings. Is that not right? If it isn't right, people who find this page on google like I did are going to be pissed.
O'bother being Winnie's Irish cousin. McBother is Winnie's scottish cousin of course.
The exclamation being Oh bother, of course.
I know, I know, off topic flamebait. It's my type A talking, not me!
It means that our country has fallen to a sad state of affairs, since people's initial reaction to a giant laser story on an airplane is "Austin Powers" and not "Real Genius", a true geek movie classic.
In a related story, American troops have been seen rolling large tinfoil balls filled with an unknown substance into strategic locations around France.
Doesn't civil disobedience require taking a stand for your own opinions? Even here on slashdot you get the option of pseudoanonymity, why would you still insist on being AC?
At least when I make noise you can associate my other posts to it; that way when I encourage civil disobedience I can at least have cyber reputation at risk.
It is a renewal. You had a valid certificate before, you will have a valid certificate after. It MAY be borderline sleazy, just as I consider legit cold calls from MCI to be sleazy (anyone have that lawyer from Washington's info? The one that sues spammers and telemarketers after he tells them to cease and desist?). It ISN'T decepetive, as near as I can tell though.
You can't fool all of the people all the time, but you can for some of the people whether you want to or not.
They brute forced his password (possibly physically from him) and without the permission of the US hosting site, gained unauthorized access pretending to be someone else.
When will the US courts have the balls to press hacking, theft of identity, and computer fraud charges against the Italian government?
Somehow I doubt this. If Spam didn't work, why do I get a hundred pieces of it every morning? Someone is buying.
Because of risk v. return. Sending spam once you have an internet connection is for all intents and purposes free. Until you can prove it actually hurts the previous revenue stream, there is no reason not to spam.
Consider it this way, if I send 10,000 peices of spam, and log on for free, I need one response to make a profit. If I don't even bother with ethics, and instead compile a list of people who respond (auto responders count), people who try and unsubscribe, and people who flame back, then I sell those names, I make a killing. Just like used car salesmen, real estate agents, and lawyers I don't need anything valuable to sell, I only need a few suckers.*
* Obviously, a gross generalization. I appologize for comparing real estate agents to lawyers.
In many movies, people walk away from them saying, "Man, they FORCED that CG." How much discretion do you have in saying, "You guys should really do that with makeup effects." In a corrollary, are you more in the CG-Should-Be-Impossible-To-Spot or the CG-Should-Be-The-End-All-Of-Effects camp?
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point behind the Carnivore system is that the data is captured but not examined until you have a search warrant.
Schroeder's cat: If I have a copy of data I can't access, at what point is the data actually "seized"? When it is a copy of bits, or when it is examined and found to be data?
No you twit, this isn't entraptment
You missed the best part. The robot did diddly squat except test inputs using sensors.
Krister Wolff and Peter Nordin of Chalmers University of Technology built a robot with wings and then gave it random instructions through a computer at the rate of 20 per second.
So they built a robot, gave it sensors, then said, which works best, this? how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?how about this?
Big whoop. So they built a robot that can do a bubble sort.
And thats ignoring a basic flaw in the monkey analogy. Monkeys learn by imitation. Salt was not a developed taste, but knowing that certain water had salt IN IT required being thrown into it by an outside source.
I don't know of the exact experiment, but it's clear that what happened is that HUMANS taught them to add salt by dipping it in the water, then they taught this to their infants who learned by imitation. Almost all wild mammals will consume as much salt as they can find.
Problem solving doesn't denote intelligence. Any creature will use methods that have worked before to achieve similiar results. Intelligence is coming up with methods it has never seen used before and knowing in advance whether or not they are likely to work. Even human children fail many tests of intelligence until they are older, until they learn to communicate.
Consider Hellen Keller or feral children. They act as beasts until taught to communicate, then they suddenly jump into society with little splash. It isn't just genetics at work here.
Silly man, those where "pucks". Entirely different. See, these are MICE.
Differences include what order they occur in alphabetically and number of letters.
Apparently you need smaller words.
Your *friends* don't have to give them the address. They are *lying* about this. You *give* them the address of your *friends* then they bug them if you fall for it, and *maybe* one of your friends fell for it. Most *likely* your *friend* was a spambot that *sold* them your *email* because they discovered you interchange *apostrophes* and *quotation marks* when *emphasizing* *unnecessarily*.
Agreed. A surprisingly large amount of information you "see" every day is completely made up based on your preexisting assumption of size of objects at given distances. Movie people use this constantly to produce amazing effects. Unless of course you also believe you "saw" Ian McKellen towering over Elijah Wood. What they did was just like what the plane did, even if unintentionally. You saw an object that your brain decided was close because of it's size, and the fact the other reference it had (the building you were in/on) was similiar size and close. After it decided the distance, it reevaluated the size, and said, Hey, that must be HUGE, since it's so close and still seems big. After that, it said, man, that must be silent since I can't hear it and it is so close. Finally, your brain decided it was moving really slow (or really fast depending on decided distance)
In Louisiana this defense also applies to car jackers.
I thought there WAS a way to spoof the User Agent with one of the javascript settings. Is that not right?
If it isn't right, people who find this page on google like I did are going to be pissed.
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application
Well, can I be the first to say, "Thank God"?
I mean, isn't this a Good Thing (TM), at least according to Thomas Krul's theory?
If he wakes up next to Cindy Crawford, I'd expect him to tell everyone.
O'bother being Winnie's Irish cousin. McBother is Winnie's scottish cousin of course. The exclamation being Oh bother, of course. I know, I know, off topic flamebait. It's my type A talking, not me!
It means that our country has fallen to a sad state of affairs, since people's initial reaction to a giant laser story on an airplane is "Austin Powers" and not "Real Genius", a true geek movie classic.
In a related story, American troops have been seen rolling large tinfoil balls filled with an unknown substance into strategic locations around France.
Doesn't civil disobedience require taking a stand for your own opinions? Even here on slashdot you get the option of pseudoanonymity, why would you still insist on being AC?
At least when I make noise you can associate my other posts to it; that way when I encourage civil disobedience I can at least have cyber reputation at risk.
Risk nothing, lose everything.
It is a renewal. You had a valid certificate before, you will have a valid certificate after. It MAY be borderline sleazy, just as I consider legit cold calls from MCI to be sleazy (anyone have that lawyer from Washington's info? The one that sues spammers and telemarketers after he tells them to cease and desist?). It ISN'T decepetive, as near as I can tell though. You can't fool all of the people all the time, but you can for some of the people whether you want to or not.
Actually, a later hit was more interesting: Explanation of what is happening
For information: First google hit on ATH0
Well, they aren't rocket scientists.
Ba dum bum CHING.
Are you kidding?
Can you imagine the panty removal power of:
"Actually, I AM a rocket scientist..."
or
"I have tomorrow off, NASA believes even astronauts should get a break once in a while."
You don't need to BE an astronaut or rocket scientist, you just need the NASA id badge.
They brute forced his password (possibly physically from him) and without the permission of the US hosting site, gained unauthorized access pretending to be someone else.
When will the US courts have the balls to press hacking, theft of identity, and computer fraud charges against the Italian government?
I don't know if I'm joking or not.
Somehow I doubt this. If Spam didn't work, why do I get a hundred pieces of it every morning? Someone is buying.
Because of risk v. return. Sending spam once you have an internet connection is for all intents and purposes free. Until you can prove it actually hurts the previous revenue stream, there is no reason not to spam.
Consider it this way, if I send 10,000 peices of spam, and log on for free, I need one response to make a profit. If I don't even bother with ethics, and instead compile a list of people who respond (auto responders count), people who try and unsubscribe, and people who flame back, then I sell those names, I make a killing.
Just like used car salesmen, real estate agents, and lawyers I don't need anything valuable to sell, I only need a few suckers.*
* Obviously, a gross generalization. I appologize for comparing real estate agents to lawyers.
It's sad what admins will convince businesses and colleges to do just to get ahead in the SETI ratings.
Countdown until Rob Rosenberger has a nervous breakdown begun... 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ...
In many movies, people walk away from them saying, "Man, they FORCED that CG."
How much discretion do you have in saying, "You guys should really do that with makeup effects."
In a corrollary, are you more in the CG-Should-Be-Impossible-To-Spot or the CG-Should-Be-The-End-All-Of-Effects camp?