...why are we still using a system that relies on you trusting every single person you give your credit card details to? It would be perfectly possible to generate a one-time authorisation code for each transaction...
Easy. It will give Windows a file system "executable" bit, you know, the one which other operating systems have had for decades, then alter all the software that's already out there to use it.
You can remotely spy on someone's CRT dispay or LED display... not by means of trojans, but by some clever signal processing on either stray light from the display or radio emissions.
If you're going to get paranoid about such things, you should be getting paranoid about the fact that someone could be watching your computer from several rooms away:-)
Do you have any kind of proof?... they may well be doing something with the data, but I find it hard to believe they're building a table of IP addresses and searches... where's the commercial gain?
There's no reason for online casinos to be fixed. Casinos make money because the odds are in their favour, plain and simple. They're big enough to absorb any random variation without really noticing, and just see people giving them money for nothing.
Cheating puts them in the wrong and won't necessarily bring in more money (after all, wins keep people interested).
It reads... define function ':' as follows: pipe the output from function ':' into function ':' -- do that in the background (ie fork). Call the function ':'.
I had no idea how it worked, either, but I looked it up:-)
Er... no... it's because when you drop toast you don't generally throw it, it generally slides off the plate.
It turns out that the action of sliding off the plate gives it just enough spin for half a turn. This is actually a fact that comes from how tall humans are, how large toast is, and how strong the graviational field on earth is.
The weights of the two sides have no effect on rotation at all, apart from changing the centre of mass, about which (excluding other forces) the object will rotate.
In fact, since angular momentum is conserved, once something is rotating it can't possibly stop rotating unless an outside force acts on it.
They spend quite a while discussing the problems Windows has with security, including viruses... how is that a nice plug?
The article seems pretty balanced to me, although it does gloss over one or two points (Munich hadn't already 'made up their mind' when Microsoft made a cheaper offer).
In fact, GPS satellites broadcast two different kinds of time signals. The first is the Coarse Acquisition signal, or C/A-code. Designed for nonmilitary users, it provides position information accurate to about 100 meters. The second signal is the encrypted Precision signal, or P-code. Intended for US military or other authorized recipients, it is accurate to within twenty meters.
They go on to say that the C/A-code has at times been intentionally degraded further at times, but when their own troops only had commercial receivers, during the Gulf War, it was fixed.
I don't feel like actually researching the issue to come up with a definitive answer, but I thought it was more a matter of the military adding pseudo-random noise when they want to; their own detectors can remove it, civilian detectors can't.
But I might be wrong:-)
(hmm, they would still be able to add pseudonoise in certain areas, since the satellites cover different areas...)
Er. You know Sean Connery is Scottish, right? Geographically a British accent, but doesn't 'British accent' generally refer to received English? (aka BBC English, Queens' English)
I don't know, I live here, it's not something I talk about much;-)
...with that kind of name recognition, and google's technical ability and design sense, I might finally be able to persuade my family not to use hotmail.
Hmm, I didn't say no serious punishment... but I don't think jail is necessarily the answer. It costs the country money, it stops them doing productive work, and it may not change their ways.
Jailing people who aren't a continuing threat to society always seems a little odd.
(I don't have any claim to be an expert on such things, nor on what works, though).
I'm not sure laws/punishment are particularly effective against viruses, anyway -- it's such a big 'kick me' sign that viruses will always be written, as long as they are permitted by the technology.
Hmm. Broadly speaking, that's a nice goal... but not really possible, is it?
If you allow a user level program to open network connections, they're security risks. If you allow them to access files -- even a restricted subset -- they're security risks. If they can display to the screen, they're security risks.
Security is always a balancing act, and protecting a computer from itself is really quite hard.
Of course, if you have some good ideas, there are some major universities and research groups who would love to hear from you;-)
The original study might not have been nonsense, but the news summary is. It's like saying my salary is 10000/x and yours is 5000/y so I'm richer. Meaningless.
I agree about security, though -- and would be interested to see a genuine comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
...why are we still using a system that relies on you trusting every single person you give your credit card details to? It would be perfectly possible to generate a one-time authorisation code for each transaction...
...you can solve this one by throwing money at it.
Buy one of these and relax. You'll never have to worry about passwords again.
Easy. It will give Windows a file system "executable" bit, you know, the one which other operating systems have had for decades, then alter all the software that's already out there to use it.
It's a very clever piece of engineering.
You can remotely spy on someone's CRT dispay or LED display... not by means of trojans, but by some clever signal processing on either stray light from the display or radio emissions.
If you're going to get paranoid about such things, you should be getting paranoid about the fact that someone could be watching your computer from several rooms away :-)
This google search lead to this good page on the topic (skip down to 'how it works').
Because it's the same word as the feedback you get when you put a microphone too close to the speakers?
Who knows. Odds are the electronics cost far more than they should have done, but audio electronics tend to, I think :-)
Do you have any kind of proof?... they may well be doing something with the data, but I find it hard to believe they're building a table of IP addresses and searches... where's the commercial gain?
There's no reason for online casinos to be fixed. Casinos make money because the odds are in their favour, plain and simple. They're big enough to absorb any random variation without really noticing, and just see people giving them money for nothing.
Cheating puts them in the wrong and won't necessarily bring in more money (after all, wins keep people interested).
...that this is a pdf? Surely they should have released it as a Word file :-)
:(){ :|:&};:
:-)
It reads... define function ':' as follows: pipe the output from function ':' into function ':' -- do that in the background (ie fork). Call the function ':'.
I had no idea how it worked, either, but I looked it up
Er... no... it's because when you drop toast you don't generally throw it, it generally slides off the plate.
It turns out that the action of sliding off the plate gives it just enough spin for half a turn. This is actually a fact that comes from how tall humans are, how large toast is, and how strong the graviational field on earth is.
The weights of the two sides have no effect on rotation at all, apart from changing the centre of mass, about which (excluding other forces) the object will rotate.
In fact, since angular momentum is conserved, once something is rotating it can't possibly stop rotating unless an outside force acts on it.
It's an simple economic truth: copying software is very, very, cheap. Therefore software will become very, very cheap.
If you don't write free software, someone else will.
They spend quite a while discussing the problems Windows has with security, including viruses... how is that a nice plug?
The article seems pretty balanced to me, although it does gloss over one or two points (Munich hadn't already 'made up their mind' when Microsoft made a cheaper offer).
There isn't a monopoly on portable devices -- consumers are free to vote with their wallets. And they will. Capitalism at work, isn't it great?
In fact you pretty much have to.
Unfortunately biometics violate one of the most basic principles of passwords... they can't be changed if compromised.
Hmm, two opposing assertions, it's time for a reference :-)
http://www.afa.org/magazine/April1996/0496gpsin.as p
In fact, GPS satellites broadcast two different kinds of time signals. The first is the Coarse Acquisition signal, or C/A-code. Designed for nonmilitary users, it provides position information accurate to about 100 meters. The second signal is the encrypted Precision signal, or P-code. Intended for US military or other authorized recipients, it is accurate to within twenty meters.
They go on to say that the C/A-code has at times been intentionally degraded further at times, but when their own troops only had commercial receivers, during the Gulf War, it was fixed.
Anyway, yeah, you were right :-)
Hmm, how much do you know about GPS?
I don't feel like actually researching the issue to come up with a definitive answer, but I thought it was more a matter of the military adding pseudo-random noise when they want to; their own detectors can remove it, civilian detectors can't.
But I might be wrong :-)
(hmm, they would still be able to add pseudonoise in certain areas, since the satellites cover different areas...)
Er. You know Sean Connery is Scottish, right? Geographically a British accent, but doesn't 'British accent' generally refer to received English? (aka BBC English, Queens' English)
I don't know, I live here, it's not something I talk about much ;-)
...with that kind of name recognition, and google's technical ability and design sense, I might finally be able to persuade my family not to use hotmail.
(sigh)
(Er, that last paragraph wasn't an argument for leniency, it was an argument that going after the virus writers isn't a way to stop viruses).
Hmm, I didn't say no serious punishment... but I don't think jail is necessarily the answer. It costs the country money, it stops them doing productive work, and it may not change their ways.
Jailing people who aren't a continuing threat to society always seems a little odd.
(I don't have any claim to be an expert on such things, nor on what works, though).
I'm not sure laws/punishment are particularly effective against viruses, anyway -- it's such a big 'kick me' sign that viruses will always be written, as long as they are permitted by the technology.
Hmm. Broadly speaking, that's a nice goal... but not really possible, is it?
If you allow a user level program to open network connections, they're security risks. If you allow them to access files -- even a restricted subset -- they're security risks. If they can display to the screen, they're security risks.
Security is always a balancing act, and protecting a computer from itself is really quite hard.
Of course, if you have some good ideas, there are some major universities and research groups who would love to hear from you ;-)
Hmm. An app should not be able to crash the OS... a device driver, yes, but not a user-level application.
That said, Windows does have to put up with third-party device drivers... (well, don't we all?)...
The original study might not have been nonsense, but the news summary is. It's like saying my salary is 10000/x and yours is 5000/y so I'm richer. Meaningless.
I agree about security, though -- and would be interested to see a genuine comparison.
Thankyou for another troll :-P
Seriously, I would hope I'm intelligent enough to spot meaningless statistics wherever they show up... which is in a lot of places.
News articles rarely quote enough to be meaningful.