Would it have been better to have a system with a few hackers taking advantage and skipping some parking fees, versus a now-comprimised system
Stupid knowledge! You just ruin it for everyone. If only we'd be more ignorant and stick our heads in the sand there would be no problem.
Did you ever think that someone beyond curious hackers looking for a few free hours of parking might be interested in this? Like say.. criminals selling counterfeit parking cards at 1/3 the price?
I'm starting to get really tired of explaining my sig, but I still think it's a really good point.
Your sig lacks context, or assumes a context of short trips. If you're really ABLE to go 75, odds are you're taking a long journey (in general a 75MPH speed limit is only outside cities).
WTF? Why do people think they automatically understand traffic jams just because they've been in one? Neither of you provide a shred of evidence for your theories. Researchers aren't perfect, and neither are their experimental evidence. But at least they HAVE evidence rather than just making stuff up.
So in this case the "band" is simply the normal monthly patch-tuesday update. Being outside that makes it out-of-band. Why does a band have to mean an entirely different medium of communication?
In any case, you can't fight it. I've heard this usage enough that it's part of standard techno-babble.
So I wouldn't start predicting any "and eventually they'll just make it permanent" just yet. Predicting future scientific advancement based on past scientific advancement is beyond foolish.
Maybe. But why use ACTUAL botnets for this purpose and not study the underlying algorithms and infection behavior directly? That would give you the ability to generalize instead of relying on -botnet X, version z-
If that's what you care about, study it. Why rely on botnet authors to code some arbitrary botnet spreading code when you can write your own and study various different scenarios at will?
If it's unclear what the code does, run it in a debugger and control the inputs. Step through the code line by line. If the debugger doesn't do everything you want, write a better debugger.
I have to agree that this seems like a silly idea. Comparing the complexity of a botnet program to a dog is silly. It also ignores the fact that code run in a debug environment can look at every single aspect of running code while it's running. A dog is obviously many many many orders of magnitude more complex.
I agree with that sentiment for many things. Buck Rogers was ueber-cool as a kid, but a few years ago I watched it and couldn't sit through an episode. Knight Rider, same thing. Old Battlestar Galactica? Completely unwatchable and embarrassing. The list goes on.
Tron however is still a decent movie. It's not a GREAT movie, but it's nowhere near the level of terribleness as Knight Rider. No movie really lives up to the excitement of childhood.
As far as "a sequel suggests they thought the original was actually good".. well, you've got a lot to learn about the movie business. A sequel suggests they think it would stand a good chance of making money. Good doesn't play any role in that. Who knows if they're right. I'd say now is the prime time for a Tron sequel though. GenX is old enough to spend the dough on the movie/merchandise/DVD, and the world has become even more techno-nerd.
The first question is really, why RAID a SSD? It's already more reliable than a mechanical disk, so that argument goes out the window. You might get some increased performance, but that's often not a big factor.
The second question is, with processors coming with 8 cores, why have some separate specialized controller that handles RAID and not just do it in software?
For some people their livelihood depends on the safety of their information. For most of us though, it's really little more than attachment. If you've gotten to the point where you need to backup to tape "just in case", perhaps your problem isn't so much the danger of data loss, but you fear of data loss.
You've generalized my statement beyond it's original intent. I simply believe the monetary value of art should be based on.. the art, and not on some arbitrary value based upon the name of artist who created it. If you can't tell if something is "good" without knowing who created it, that's "bad" IMO. If we can destroy the concept of "creator", that's "good" IMO.
Maybe their technology does work, but their analogies do not.
It's an analogy, not a model. Analogies are always their to bridge the gap between complete ignorance and knowledge. Grasping onto the analogy and complaining it doesn't work is like floating while holding onto a life preserver while trying to cross a stream and complaining the life preserver isn't getting you to the other side.
In other words, if you want to understand what's going on you need to start understanding the model and throw away the dumb analogy.
It reminds me of a problem my mum told me about in the art world: Verifying the authenticity of ancient scrolls has become virtually impossible due to the discovery of large quantities of paint supplies (dried ink especially) and paper in monasteries. Armed with "old materials", forgers only have to focus on getting the technique, etc. right since there is no means to catch them technologically; for example, carbon dating and similar techniques will give the "right" results. Thus, art historians and dealers in that field allegedly have to rely more and more on their eyes to spot bad technique...
That's the best news I've heard in weeks. Assigning Art monetary value based on some imaginary or hidden property like "authenticity", or "name recognition" is incredibly silly. The fact that forgers have been able to replicate this so people might actually have to assign value based on... what the Art looks like... is really wonderful! Perhaps someday forgery will be so perfect and complete that the concept of an "artistic forgery" will be a concept people have to look at history books to understand. I especially love the occasional documentary on a "master forger" who fooled all the "experts" into believing some work of art was really created by -famous artist-.
It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school. It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights.
Right. Because the vast majority of companies eventually wind up on the S&P 500 list, just like the vast majority of people move from 5th grade to middle school.
Your attempt to downplay this is ridiculous. This may not be a big deal to "the rest of the world" (exactly how many things are a big deal when put in that context?), but it's quite a big deal for open source.
Comparing this to all the things it's NOT misses the point. That's a fools errand. What it IS is a recognition that a company based on open source software is a player in the large market. That's all people are trying to say here.
"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."
Translation: The media found one cranky guy like yourself (who also called the coppers in the first place), and decided to print "local people" instead of "local crank".
This is a minor story written by cub-reporters. Don't mistake any "facts" presented here for anything reliable. If you've ever actually known people involved in a real story reported on by the media, you'd know that a good 50% of the "facts" of the story are completely wrong. The major stories aren't a hell of a lot better.
I think eventually you could do what you're saying and make it sound natural.
The thing you'll NEVER be able to automate is determining how you want the character to say a particular phrase. Surprise? Delight? Sadness? A subtle combination of all three? An emphasis on this word or that word? That kind of work takes talent. At that point, why not just hire the actual people manipulate their actual voice rather than technicians sitting in a room trying to manipulate software? The software is always going to have severe limitations in what it can do. Sure you can add in new abilities, but who wants to tweak someones voice to do this or that, then be told "we don't currently support that feature", and then wait 6 months for it to be (possibly) added? The talent of voice actors isn't simply the ability to create a certain sounding voice.
I thought about buying one on and off. But now that I've learned Amazon doesn't respect its customers purchased property, forget about it.
This kind of thing will Doom the Kindle out of the mainstream. Who wants to buy something that could at any moment, and without warning disappear? Nobody likes things they thought were tangible suddenly becoming intangible. It's the same reason the original Circuit-City DIVX scheme never took off.
How exactly? My car can only be locked with both doors already closed.
Uhh... It wasn't your car that was locked?
WTF? Have you never seen other cars before? Most don't have this feature at all.
Security through being different?
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What I get from this overly long article is the author thinks that simply by not being the same as the herd (the herd being people who use FTP) that increases security.
While there's some truth to this, it's a lot less than you think. Being different in one way doesn't save you from all the other ways you're the same. If someone can install malware on your machine, a keylogger would grab ANYTHING you type in. It's not too hard to parse out all of that for username/passwords. It's like saying having a strange non-standard layout to your house keeps you safe from really dumb burglars that've already broken in.
It's not an argument, it's an observation about the environment. This isn't about correct or not correct, it's about who's responsible for doing the legwork.
I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email. There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.
How about the internet connection that feeds your email, are companies willing to trust an external company for that? If you're paranoid, there's a ton of people you could be worried about if you lack trust.
The truth is the world is built on trust. I really think most companies couldn't care less about trusting email to an external company. Anyone on Exchange is ALREADY trusting Microsoft with their email infra-structure. Is it really that different trusting Google?
No, I really do think this is about people losing Outlook. I seriously don't understand it, since Outlook is about the worst program I've ever had to avoid using. There's a certain segment of the population that are just dinosaurs and refuse any kind of change once it's put upon them. If those people have any power within a company, they can easily kill any move to replace Outlook with something else.
If I make a statement, and you'd like me to link you to a source, I would, and I cannot rightly understand people being offended as they are if I ask for it.
This isn't a research paper, it's a discussion forum. This also isn't a general forum for Joe Sixpack, it's Slashdot. If you're not up to speed on the generally accepted knowledge base it's up to you to find and dispute it.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it have been better to have a system with a few hackers taking advantage and skipping some parking fees, versus a now-comprimised system
Stupid knowledge! You just ruin it for everyone. If only we'd be more ignorant and stick our heads in the sand there would be no problem.
Did you ever think that someone beyond curious hackers looking for a few free hours of parking might be interested in this? Like say.. criminals selling counterfeit parking cards at 1/3 the price?
I'm starting to get really tired of explaining my sig, but I still think it's a really good point.
Your sig lacks context, or assumes a context of short trips. If you're really ABLE to go 75, odds are you're taking a long journey (in general a 75MPH speed limit is only outside cities).
WTF? Why do people think they automatically understand traffic jams just because they've been in one? Neither of you provide a shred of evidence for your theories. Researchers aren't perfect, and neither are their experimental evidence. But at least they HAVE evidence rather than just making stuff up.
So in this case the "band" is simply the normal monthly patch-tuesday update. Being outside that makes it out-of-band. Why does a band have to mean an entirely different medium of communication?
In any case, you can't fight it. I've heard this usage enough that it's part of standard techno-babble.
The problem is that atoms in an excited state (which is how this works) don't like to stay that way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state
So I wouldn't start predicting any "and eventually they'll just make it permanent" just yet. Predicting future scientific advancement based on past scientific advancement is beyond foolish.
Maybe. But why use ACTUAL botnets for this purpose and not study the underlying algorithms and infection behavior directly? That would give you the ability to generalize instead of relying on -botnet X, version z-
If that's what you care about, study it. Why rely on botnet authors to code some arbitrary botnet spreading code when you can write your own and study various different scenarios at will?
If it's unclear what the code does, run it in a debugger and control the inputs. Step through the code line by line. If the debugger doesn't do everything you want, write a better debugger.
I have to agree that this seems like a silly idea. Comparing the complexity of a botnet program to a dog is silly. It also ignores the fact that code run in a debug environment can look at every single aspect of running code while it's running. A dog is obviously many many many orders of magnitude more complex.
I agree with that sentiment for many things. Buck Rogers was ueber-cool as a kid, but a few years ago I watched it and couldn't sit through an episode. Knight Rider, same thing. Old Battlestar Galactica? Completely unwatchable and embarrassing. The list goes on.
Tron however is still a decent movie. It's not a GREAT movie, but it's nowhere near the level of terribleness as Knight Rider. No movie really lives up to the excitement of childhood.
As far as "a sequel suggests they thought the original was actually good".. well, you've got a lot to learn about the movie business. A sequel suggests they think it would stand a good chance of making money. Good doesn't play any role in that. Who knows if they're right. I'd say now is the prime time for a Tron sequel though. GenX is old enough to spend the dough on the movie/merchandise/DVD, and the world has become even more techno-nerd.
The first question is really, why RAID a SSD? It's already more reliable than a mechanical disk, so that argument goes out the window. You might get some increased performance, but that's often not a big factor.
The second question is, with processors coming with 8 cores, why have some separate specialized controller that handles RAID and not just do it in software?
Which is a point of view I don't agree with.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit?
I ignore his point because it's irrelevant. Other people are also free to believe things I feel are wrong, so what?
For some people their livelihood depends on the safety of their information. For most of us though, it's really little more than attachment. If you've gotten to the point where you need to backup to tape "just in case", perhaps your problem isn't so much the danger of data loss, but you fear of data loss.
You've generalized my statement beyond it's original intent. I simply believe the monetary value of art should be based on.. the art, and not on some arbitrary value based upon the name of artist who created it. If you can't tell if something is "good" without knowing who created it, that's "bad" IMO. If we can destroy the concept of "creator", that's "good" IMO.
Maybe their technology does work, but their analogies do not.
It's an analogy, not a model. Analogies are always their to bridge the gap between complete ignorance and knowledge. Grasping onto the analogy and complaining it doesn't work is like floating while holding onto a life preserver while trying to cross a stream and complaining the life preserver isn't getting you to the other side.
In other words, if you want to understand what's going on you need to start understanding the model and throw away the dumb analogy.
It reminds me of a problem my mum told me about in the art world: Verifying the authenticity of ancient scrolls has become virtually impossible due to the discovery of large quantities of paint supplies (dried ink especially) and paper in monasteries. Armed with "old materials", forgers only have to focus on getting the technique, etc. right since there is no means to catch them technologically; for example, carbon dating and similar techniques will give the "right" results. Thus, art historians and dealers in that field allegedly have to rely more and more on their eyes to spot bad technique...
That's the best news I've heard in weeks. Assigning Art monetary value based on some imaginary or hidden property like "authenticity", or "name recognition" is incredibly silly. The fact that forgers have been able to replicate this so people might actually have to assign value based on... what the Art looks like... is really wonderful! Perhaps someday forgery will be so perfect and complete that the concept of an "artistic forgery" will be a concept people have to look at history books to understand. I especially love the occasional documentary on a "master forger" who fooled all the "experts" into believing some work of art was really created by -famous artist-.
It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school. It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights.
Right. Because the vast majority of companies eventually wind up on the S&P 500 list, just like the vast majority of people move from 5th grade to middle school.
Your attempt to downplay this is ridiculous. This may not be a big deal to "the rest of the world" (exactly how many things are a big deal when put in that context?), but it's quite a big deal for open source.
Comparing this to all the things it's NOT misses the point. That's a fools errand. What it IS is a recognition that a company based on open source software is a player in the large market. That's all people are trying to say here.
"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."
Translation: The media found one cranky guy like yourself (who also called the coppers in the first place), and decided to print "local people" instead of "local crank".
This is a minor story written by cub-reporters. Don't mistake any "facts" presented here for anything reliable. If you've ever actually known people involved in a real story reported on by the media, you'd know that a good 50% of the "facts" of the story are completely wrong. The major stories aren't a hell of a lot better.
I think eventually you could do what you're saying and make it sound natural.
The thing you'll NEVER be able to automate is determining how you want the character to say a particular phrase. Surprise? Delight? Sadness? A subtle combination of all three? An emphasis on this word or that word? That kind of work takes talent. At that point, why not just hire the actual people manipulate their actual voice rather than technicians sitting in a room trying to manipulate software? The software is always going to have severe limitations in what it can do. Sure you can add in new abilities, but who wants to tweak someones voice to do this or that, then be told "we don't currently support that feature", and then wait 6 months for it to be (possibly) added? The talent of voice actors isn't simply the ability to create a certain sounding voice.
I thought about buying one on and off. But now that I've learned Amazon doesn't respect its customers purchased property, forget about it.
This kind of thing will Doom the Kindle out of the mainstream. Who wants to buy something that could at any moment, and without warning disappear? Nobody likes things they thought were tangible suddenly becoming intangible. It's the same reason the original Circuit-City DIVX scheme never took off.
How exactly? My car can only be locked with both doors already closed.
Uhh... It wasn't your car that was locked?
WTF? Have you never seen other cars before? Most don't have this feature at all.
What I get from this overly long article is the author thinks that simply by not being the same as the herd (the herd being people who use FTP) that increases security.
While there's some truth to this, it's a lot less than you think. Being different in one way doesn't save you from all the other ways you're the same. If someone can install malware on your machine, a keylogger would grab ANYTHING you type in. It's not too hard to parse out all of that for username/passwords. It's like saying having a strange non-standard layout to your house keeps you safe from really dumb burglars that've already broken in.
It's not an argument, it's an observation about the environment. This isn't about correct or not correct, it's about who's responsible for doing the legwork.
I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email. There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.
How about the internet connection that feeds your email, are companies willing to trust an external company for that? If you're paranoid, there's a ton of people you could be worried about if you lack trust.
The truth is the world is built on trust. I really think most companies couldn't care less about trusting email to an external company. Anyone on Exchange is ALREADY trusting Microsoft with their email infra-structure. Is it really that different trusting Google?
No, I really do think this is about people losing Outlook. I seriously don't understand it, since Outlook is about the worst program I've ever had to avoid using. There's a certain segment of the population that are just dinosaurs and refuse any kind of change once it's put upon them. If those people have any power within a company, they can easily kill any move to replace Outlook with something else.
If I make a statement, and you'd like me to link you to a source, I would, and I cannot rightly understand people being offended as they are if I ask for it.
This isn't a research paper, it's a discussion forum. This also isn't a general forum for Joe Sixpack, it's Slashdot. If you're not up to speed on the generally accepted knowledge base it's up to you to find and dispute it.