On the other hand, with so many people violating rules and laws, costing lives and money, something like this is inevitable.
But why would the solution to more and more people breaking the law have to do less and less with law enforcement? Maybe if we funded our police depts enough, we wouldn't need our privacy invaded. Of course, with all those policemen with nothing to do, maybe at least we'd catch them redhanded at it.
Of course you're right, since creativity is a DRIVING force in the first place. If anything drove it, it wouldn't be creativity.
But it's also a limited angle to look at it:
It's like saying having woodworking tools makes me want to build an innovative bench.
Of course having the tools doesn't make me be innovative bench, but with just my nails I won't be making any bench. That people may not have talent for woodworking doesn't mean that tools aren't useful to make benches. Just like giving a lot of tools to people doesn't make more innovative benches happen by magic.
Innovation is hard, especially when constrained by people's habits, like innovating in any field where retraining costs can be considered the most important cost of any solution.
Interestingly, what you've expressed about innovation happens even before the code gets written. Innovative ideas happen in people's minds, code has little to do with it. The implementation of those ideas in innovative ways happens in code. Having more code to work with is a tool, and lack of it can even be a barrier to entry in some circumstances.
Does that mean I can't design an innovative bench if I don't have a chisel? Of course not, the design tool is still the pencil. Code is an implementation tool, just like a chisel or a plank of wood.
"the authorities" are not interested in getting the addresses of filesharers. Someone with a vested interest in the filesharers not filesharing is trying to make the filesharers life "interesting" through the court system. slight difference.
There is very little interest in the judiciary in catching people who only commit computer crimes, which don't have monetary counterparts in the real world, unless they affect large numbers of people(spam).
The fact that malware does NOT currently stack at around 125+ per day makes them second runners in the race for public interest.
As far as I know, in Canada (and the US IIRC, but I'm sure it's that way in Canada, else we'd have provincial copyright laws and different punishment by province) copyright transgress is a criminal offense. If the trend continues, countries like the UK, where the copyright law makes sense, will become even more of a minority, since almost every recent change to copyright law I've seen has been to reduce the burden on copyright owners(unless they were also creators) to actually get those rights protected.
Granted, source availability does spread innovative ideas once they occur in the mind of a given developer
Isn't that choosing to quote the other end of the animal, because it suits your purpose?
Proprietary code permits the owner of the code to determine what features are included in a product, and that's deemed to be a detriment to creativity, since you don't have the code, you can't add them yourself.
Having to target the features of Outlook, because that's what the users of a product you want to replace expect, in no way limits you to those features(although it does limit you to implementing all of those features, and in some cases, that's not such a good idea, creeping featurism at work as it were).
How would the fact that people want to build a similar feature set to outlook prevent coders from adding extra features, since they have the source, or from removing unneeded features for that matter?
Re:and a horse is a horse, of course, of course...
on
We the Media
·
· Score: 1
To jump on a probably already dead horse, I tend to trust smaller media organisations because:
Larger media groups usually have to dance through hoops to prove to regulatory boards that their invidiual parts are independant, and unbiased.
I have yet to see a smaller piece of a large media group reporting their owner was part of a large scandal before everyone else.
On one hand, they have connexions, and knowledge of inner workings, so they should have the news before anyone else. On the other hand, they have financial incentive NOT to report it, as it may hurt them. How independant are they really?
Smaller outfits, where they 1) have to earn, and keep reputation their journalistic integrity 2) are independant of financial ties to larger groups, even at the "if Microsoft, our primary client for advertising goes down, we're in deep shit" level
Can be an asset, but this is the real world, and the real world thrives on shades of gray.
Honesty and integrity are black and white quantities, it's quite a quandary.
They don't decide based on free as in beer, but free as in free to say that China has done wrong is something they oppose. It's a political move on their part, now my understanding is that the article is mentioning that if ALL search engines refused to accomodate China, they'd either have to make their own search engine, or change their restrictions, to get some form of searching done.
I think China would rather block searching... After all, they KILLED people for expressing their political views over 20 years ago(the people who ordered that aren't there, but neither did the party they belonged to has done anything to say anything except that "it did the right thing"), why would they be bothered by removing a computer tool?
It's also very funny that the American congress thinks a resolution of theirs can do something in this situation without threatening a full embargo on this, after all, China's actions have always hinted that they cannot survive in a free-press environment. Threatening people with a slap on the risk if they don't do something they consider to be political(and perhaps even physical) suicide is a little funny...
More resistant to interference, and properly laid pair sets can support greater throughput easier than coax or TP with lower reimplementation in a lot of cases(changing two transceivers is faster than retesting cat 5e cable for cat6).
The Mint doesn't pay alimony. Giving the RIAA the choice of which CDs it can use to pay, when they clearly do not have the same value over time allows them a lot of control over what the "payment" is actually worth.
Considering that the said value also presumably includes a portion for RIAA dues paid by the publisher is also a consideration.
How would the court view a lawyer normally charging 150$/hour, value his hours at 300$ and "give" them in place of alimony(say giving them for charity). Such payment in kind would not be accepted, why do they allow the RIAA to do so? The idea here is not that the RIAA can choose which form of payment it wants to use, but that the RIAA also influences the value of the good, before it makes the gift...
Why didn't the judge do like they normally do in term of damages: require money that the court gives to the plaintiff? And the libraries could by, as per market, what will interest their readers? Or is that solution too obvious? Isn't this a bit close to the alimony giver controlling how much the victim gets?
Oddly enough, the article barely mentions 10G over fibre, which would be good(if a bit expensive to put in someone's home). It focuses... on 10GBase-CX4... to rehash a bit more the idea that existing equipment is reusable. And gets even more confusing when it speaks about the advantages of 10Gbase-CX4 in one paragraph, and quotes the sale of fiber equipment(FTTH to be specific) the next.
While I agree it's basically two paragraphs of the same standard, keeping the mediums seperate certainly makes sense if you want to talk about market penetration, mostly because the market penetration for both mediums so far, is radically different.
Coax is ok, TP is a nice hack, both do... what they were designed to do. Fiber is better, but it's not marketed the way that will encourage people to switch just yet(when a 1GE link is firmware upgradable to 10GE, we can talk).
The note at the bottom about desktop use did confuse me though, how would 1GE reduce latency in desktops?? Maybe it's just that I'm used to a different market, but I get the impression that this beneficial aspect of a bigger pipe is only visible in server-to-desktop large non-streaming tranfers? Like say database select queries or spreadsheets/word processing documents? Is that enough to consider it "lower latency", unqualified? When smaller packets, like AIM/mail checking/other regular, small transfers, can take considerably longer, simply because a lot of the larger bandwidth link is really an optimisation for larger packet sizes and such?
It's how they warn others that makes it morally reprehensible. I won't go into the legality of the thing because IANAL, and because it depends where you are too.
The idea is to get people to run secure systems(preferrably) or get them to make room for people that do run secure systems, because insecure systems cost us collectively, a lot.
Now the vigilante already got a reply from a site admin in the thread, that the matter was being looked into, it may or may not have been the first time they heard about it(the "vigilante" should have contacted spymac's admin first, and only after waiting for them to fix it, seeing them fail to do so, announce the problem publicly)
I think point 3 will come true first, as the truly "skilled" forgers will come to notice a lot of those "real world" factors as light correction (joining two pictures with differing angles to light sources). Layer-fudging is certainly interesting, when it comes to overlap, but I'd be surprised if light and reflection don't also play a role in the algorithm.
Perhaps some of the forgers(maybe just the ones who used to forge paintings *tongue in cheek humor*) already do pay such attention, after all, attention to detail certainly is a skill they would do well to have, and more than a few tv programs/movies mention how a reflection that looked "wrong" helped a policeman catch a criminal attempting a "perfect" crime.
However, and to recenter my argument on something closer to the article, for authentiying currency, which normally does not use "real-world" photos(an hologram is not a real world photo, as it uses artificial laser light instead of normal lighting), this technique may be of limited help as-is.
However, this research should help those researchers looking at making currency "forgery-proof" consider other alternatives, using the same algorithm. Imagine a real world picture, that follows the equations, but that uses an encryption key for input, perhaps a MD5 hash of the serial number on the bill. You'd have a picture that'd look weird of course, but without knowing the equations, the key, and having a reasonable fac-simile of the original, it would make serial-number "fudging" a lot harder. Of course, perhaps those currency printers(the independant ones, who work for/with countries to make currencies harder to forge) are already hating me right now, for even suggesting money printing costs per-bill should go up.
From this point of view, the algorithm would certainly be implementable, in read-only fashion in business-card-scanner size devices. That might help improve confidence in currency safety(I'm trying to wrap my head around a way to improve credit and debit cards, but they all involve a lot more steps than what we have right now).
One silly idea: print a digital photo of a credit card on a credit card, scan the card, see if it matches the algorithm, and how well the algorithm detects alteration. Thinking of a recursive picture printed on credit cards makes my head hurt though.
better application design might be a better idea than the delay you mention. Just because the information is grouped together, doesn't mean it should be accessible in a single screen. Nor are 114 home addresses enough to commit identity theft crimes.
There is a lot to be said about restricting confidential, identifying information(such as that sufficient to personify you) to the company you signed a contract with. My reasoning is simple: your contract is with so and so firm, you know they have your information, and you can ask them about their security procedures.
If they subcontract it(not the hire a consultant to build a storage infrastructure in-house, but actually house it on servers under the control of another company), then they can't tell you how the data about you is stored(because some of those methods are proprietary to the outsourcer). Can you get a copy of the contract's security provisions that they take on behalf of your identity? We aren't talking about whether or not you like so and so sports star here, we are talking about enough info to make you apply for a credit card without your knowledge. That identifying data HAS to belong to you, because it's part of your identity.
While collecting trivia about my shopping preferences can certainly fall under copyright law as compiling information, how can information that allows you to impersonate me, belong to you? The information is sufficiently personal to me, that a third party acting in good faith checks those informations, and expects you to be me.
Wouldn't the reputation of the companies that the customers that information was about require some form of insurance/bond to cover their own loss of reputation over this? Of course, you missed the 114 "identities" compromised part of the post, and concentrated on the gigabytes.
If the data can support identity theft, that means people can use it to forge identities, and commit identity and credit fraud. That's why the number is high, not, the amount of data. It's how sensitive(and eventually useful to a criminal) that makes the data's value.
The problem is not just to monitor the traffic, but to apply uncircumventable precautions against unallowed behaviour. For a similar, yet a lot tougher solution, my cable provider blocks a port(port 80 right now) at the Cable Broadband Router level(the other side of my connection) and similarly, a DSL provider could do the same at the DSLAM level. That most providers don't do this is that
1) it increases the per-user cpu cost at the edge of their network 2) it increases the support calls(as not a single one of them has had the balls(yet) to my knowledge to announce it in public fora(and they are similarly afraid to announce it to their users, despite that it could actually be marketed as a good thing: we protect you from this, so your bills are more likely to stay low) Putting it on the other side of the demarc is putting provider policy control on the client's side of the link, which is generally a bad idea.
Re:Addresses are chosen with routing in mind
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
We can never rebuild the trust. The original trust was built on a select clientele, a sort of private club, if you will. Now the internet is a commodity, and for a lot of people, a facet of the right to expression. You will build protocols that handle mistrust better, and that will work, but you will not be able to go back to trusting everyone.
Disclaimer: I'm not an orkut user, but I had to speak against this.
How nice of you to suggest making bilingual people suffer, such a nice thought.
<SARCASM>I mean if you speak two languages, you can't speak them from the same country, and they can't be in your town just as near to you as the other, right? Both interesting to invite? You have to pick one, or the other. </SARCASM>
There are lots of places in the world where a single town speaks more than one language(hint: there are six languages with at least a hundred thousand people speaking them in the city I'm in, and it's not that big. I speak two and a half myself, do I really want to pick and choose?), and doing as you suggest, instead of listing "spoken" or "acceptable" languages per-user, is not a solution for a lot of those cases. For that matter, what about those brazilians that do speak english, they can't invite english people? or they can't invite other brazilians?
For a site like Orkut, the only thing that would make sense is a multi-language re-architecturing, to keep track of language preferences properly, quick hacks will just show how brittle the one-size-fits-all english approach, and how limitative of the power of expression of a whole planet. Until the USA actually gets countries to outlaw speaking languages other than English, those "international" dot-com sites should just get with the program.
I want to hear about it... My biggest complain is that users who get ANY smtp error either ignore them, or assume the domain is down(i.e. server-type error) when the most common errors in my setup are user-type errors(user sent a virus and got a bounce, user mispelt an email address, user sent mail to someone over quota...).
I wonder how much can be blamed on email clients meant to curry favor with users who don't want to bother with fine distinctions(some email clients who assume users CAN learn how to use computers, unfortunately they are the minority) and how much is compatibility with legacy/non-smtp email systems, and those people coming from custom setups(aol/compuserve) that would be an interesting research for someone who's bored I'm sure.
We're arguing about the olympics here, anyone bothered to look up the IOC's definition of a sport? Maybe it would be a lot more productive than picking each dictionary's definition, since dictionaries have to follow usage, and don't necessarily carry formal distinctions.
according to http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pd f Math and Chess could theoretically be accepted as disciplines, since events mention performance, as ranked between individuals, and discriminate against mechanical propulsion not against non-physical activity(which is good, since pistol shooting mostly involves standing still, among other Olympic Sports)
There remains the non-techie idea idea that Chess and Math are competitive disciplines, but not sports, since the laws of physics, which affect the results of all the other sports, don't affect the results of Math or Chess. Let me clarify: If I submit a proof, and you submit a proof, the proof is correct or not correct, the wind blowing over our heads will not affect it, your weight will not affect it, your physical state will have the barest influence possible on the proof you present.
Now this just may be a prejudice, but most sports involve bettering your body, and any mental improvement in coincidental, while Math and Chess improve your mind, and any body improvement is either coincidental, or of little impact to the practice of the discipline.
Since Math and Chess have so little in common with sports, we need to classify them as something other than sports. I propose Mental Disciplines.
We can certainly lobby for Mental Disciplines to be included in some future Olympics, but let's keep things clear until we do.
I can't speak for the US, but the Nokias practically invented the free phone with plan in Canada(I know Motorola did it first, but it was rare for them to do it, until they got to using Nokia phones).
You have CIOs etc... going "X is more secure, that's why we picked X"
We have CIOs not funding the applications of patches, refusing to pay for overtime/downtime/maintenance windows so patches don't get applied.
Maybe the mythical "more secure" they hope will happen is that they HOPE(more like pray) that they can actually find a system that doesn't NEED to get patched?
Sure would explain why the exploits are multiplying.
It doesn't make sense to me, since the whole Nokia dominance thing came up with Nokia having more store space than almost every other company, and their phones being the most included with plans in the beginning. Having that many models means some of them will not be in all stores, which means no matter how much choice Nokia offers, the consumers won't see all of them. So Nokia will pay R&D and marketing, but it will not reach potential users. Anyone else sees this as a "Nokia can't get so and so feature on the same single phone, so they're trying to have a model per feature, instead of doing research on what features go together in users minds, and concentrating on those models which will actually satisfy them"?
In other markets it makes sense to concentrate a company's strengths to where the most impact is felt, why isn't Nokia doing that?
Slashdot Mirror
But why would the solution to more and more people breaking the law have to do less and less with law enforcement? Maybe if we funded our police depts enough, we wouldn't need our privacy invaded. Of course, with all those policemen with nothing to do, maybe at least we'd catch them redhanded at it.
Think about it, they had to sell something. Who would have bought napster with those numbers?
Of course you're right, since creativity is a DRIVING force in the first place. If anything drove it, it wouldn't be creativity.
But it's also a limited angle to look at it:
It's like saying having woodworking tools makes me want to build an innovative bench.
Of course having the tools doesn't make me be innovative bench, but with just my nails I won't be making any bench. That people may not have talent for woodworking doesn't mean that tools aren't useful to make benches. Just like giving a lot of tools to people doesn't make more innovative benches happen by magic.
Innovation is hard, especially when constrained by people's habits, like innovating in any field where retraining costs can be considered the most important cost of any solution.
Interestingly, what you've expressed about innovation happens even before the code gets written. Innovative ideas happen in people's minds, code has little to do with it. The implementation of those ideas in innovative ways happens in code. Having more code to work with is a tool, and lack of it can even be a barrier to entry in some circumstances.
Does that mean I can't design an innovative bench if I don't have a chisel? Of course not, the design tool is still the pencil. Code is an implementation tool, just like a chisel or a plank of wood.
"the authorities" are not interested in getting the addresses of filesharers. Someone with a vested interest in the filesharers not filesharing is trying to make the filesharers life "interesting" through the court system. slight difference.
There is very little interest in the judiciary in catching people who only commit computer crimes, which don't have monetary counterparts in the real world, unless they affect large numbers of people(spam).
The fact that malware does NOT currently stack at around 125+ per day makes them second runners in the race for public interest.
As far as I know, in Canada (and the US IIRC, but I'm sure it's that way in Canada, else we'd have provincial copyright laws and different punishment by province) copyright transgress is a criminal offense.
If the trend continues, countries like the UK, where the copyright law makes sense, will become even more of a minority, since almost every recent change to copyright law I've seen has been to reduce the burden on copyright owners(unless they were also creators) to actually get those rights protected.
Isn't that choosing to quote the other end of the animal, because it suits your purpose?
Proprietary code permits the owner of the code to determine what features are included in a product, and that's deemed to be a detriment to creativity, since you don't have the code, you can't add them yourself.
Having to target the features of Outlook, because that's what the users of a product you want to replace expect, in no way limits you to those features(although it does limit you to implementing all of those features, and in some cases, that's not such a good idea, creeping featurism at work as it were).
How would the fact that people want to build a similar feature set to outlook prevent coders from adding extra features, since they have the source, or from removing unneeded features for that matter?
To jump on a probably already dead horse, I tend to trust smaller media organisations because:
Larger media groups usually have to dance through hoops to prove to regulatory boards that their invidiual parts are independant, and unbiased.
I have yet to see a smaller piece of a large media group reporting their owner was part of a large scandal before everyone else.
On one hand, they have connexions, and knowledge of inner workings, so they should have the news before anyone else. On the other hand, they have financial incentive NOT to report it, as it may hurt them. How independant are they really?
Smaller outfits, where they
1) have to earn, and keep reputation their journalistic integrity
2) are independant of financial ties to larger groups, even at the "if Microsoft, our primary client for advertising goes down, we're in deep shit" level
Can be an asset, but this is the real world, and the real world thrives on shades of gray.
Honesty and integrity are black and white quantities, it's quite a quandary.
They don't decide based on free as in beer, but free as in free to say that China has done wrong is something they oppose.
It's a political move on their part, now my understanding is that the article is mentioning that if ALL search engines refused to accomodate China, they'd either have to make their own search engine, or change their restrictions, to get some form of searching done.
I think China would rather block searching... After all, they KILLED people for expressing their political views over 20 years ago(the people who ordered that aren't there, but neither did the party they belonged to has done anything to say anything except that "it did the right thing"), why would they be bothered by removing a computer tool?
It's also very funny that the American congress thinks a resolution of theirs can do something in this situation without threatening a full embargo on this, after all, China's actions have always hinted that they cannot survive in a free-press environment. Threatening people with a slap on the risk if they don't do something they consider to be political(and perhaps even physical) suicide is a little funny...
More resistant to interference, and properly laid pair sets can support greater throughput easier than coax or TP with lower reimplementation in a lot of cases(changing two transceivers is faster than retesting cat 5e cable for cat6).
The Mint doesn't pay alimony. Giving the RIAA the choice of which CDs it can use to pay, when they clearly do not have the same value over time allows them a lot of control over what the "payment" is actually worth.
Considering that the said value also presumably includes a portion for RIAA dues paid by the publisher is also a consideration.
How would the court view a lawyer normally charging 150$/hour, value his hours at 300$ and "give" them in place of alimony(say giving them for charity). Such payment in kind would not be accepted, why do they allow the RIAA to do so? The idea here is not that the RIAA can choose which form of payment it wants to use, but that the RIAA also influences the value of the good, before it makes the gift...
Why didn't the judge do like they normally do in term of damages: require money that the court gives to the plaintiff? And the libraries could by, as per market, what will interest their readers? Or is that solution too obvious?
Isn't this a bit close to the alimony giver controlling how much the victim gets?
Oddly enough, the article barely mentions 10G over fibre, which would be good(if a bit expensive to put in someone's home). It focuses... on 10GBase-CX4... to rehash a bit more the idea that existing equipment is reusable. And gets even more confusing when it speaks about the advantages of 10Gbase-CX4 in one paragraph, and quotes the sale of fiber equipment(FTTH to be specific) the next.
While I agree it's basically two paragraphs of the same standard, keeping the mediums seperate certainly makes sense if you want to talk about market penetration, mostly because the market penetration for both mediums so far, is radically different.
Coax is ok, TP is a nice hack, both do... what they were designed to do. Fiber is better, but it's not marketed the way that will encourage people to switch just yet(when a 1GE link is firmware upgradable to 10GE, we can talk).
The note at the bottom about desktop use did confuse me though, how would 1GE reduce latency in desktops?? Maybe it's just that I'm used to a different market, but I get the impression that this beneficial aspect of a bigger pipe is only visible in server-to-desktop large non-streaming tranfers? Like say database select queries or spreadsheets/word processing documents? Is that enough to consider it "lower latency", unqualified? When smaller packets, like AIM/mail checking/other regular, small transfers, can take considerably longer, simply because a lot of the larger bandwidth link is really an optimisation for larger packet sizes and such?
It's how they warn others that makes it morally reprehensible. I won't go into the legality of the thing because IANAL, and because it depends where you are too.
The idea is to get people to run secure systems(preferrably) or get them to make room for people that do run secure systems, because insecure systems cost us collectively, a lot.
Now the vigilante already got a reply from a site admin in the thread, that the matter was being looked into, it may or may not have been the first time they heard about it(the "vigilante" should have contacted spymac's admin first, and only after waiting for them to fix it, seeing them fail to do so, announce the problem publicly)
I think point 3 will come true first, as the truly "skilled" forgers will come to notice a lot of those "real world" factors as light correction (joining two pictures with differing angles to light sources). Layer-fudging is certainly interesting, when it comes to overlap, but I'd be surprised if light and reflection don't also play a role in the algorithm.
Perhaps some of the forgers(maybe just the ones who used to forge paintings *tongue in cheek humor*) already do pay such attention, after all, attention to detail certainly is a skill they would do well to have, and more than a few tv programs/movies mention how a reflection that looked "wrong" helped a policeman catch a criminal attempting a "perfect" crime.
However, and to recenter my argument on something closer to the article, for authentiying currency, which normally does not use "real-world" photos(an hologram is not a real world photo, as it uses artificial laser light instead of normal lighting), this technique may be of limited help as-is.
However, this research should help those researchers looking at making currency "forgery-proof" consider other alternatives, using the same algorithm. Imagine a real world picture, that follows the equations, but that uses an encryption key for input, perhaps a MD5 hash of the serial number on the bill. You'd have a picture that'd look weird of course, but without knowing the equations, the key, and having a reasonable fac-simile of the original, it would make serial-number "fudging" a lot harder. Of course, perhaps those currency printers(the independant ones, who work for/with countries to make currencies harder to forge) are already hating me right now, for even suggesting money printing costs per-bill should go up.
From this point of view, the algorithm would certainly be implementable, in read-only fashion in business-card-scanner size devices. That might help improve confidence in currency safety(I'm trying to wrap my head around a way to improve credit and debit cards, but they all involve a lot more steps than what we have right now).
One silly idea: print a digital photo of a credit card on a credit card, scan the card, see if it matches the algorithm, and how well the algorithm detects alteration. Thinking of a recursive picture printed on credit cards makes my head hurt though.
better application design might be a better idea than the delay you mention. Just because the information is grouped together, doesn't mean it should be accessible in a single screen. Nor are 114 home addresses enough to commit identity theft crimes.
There is a lot to be said about restricting confidential, identifying information(such as that sufficient to personify you) to the company you signed a contract with. My reasoning is simple:
your contract is with so and so firm, you know they have your information, and you can ask them about their security procedures.
If they subcontract it(not the hire a consultant to build a storage infrastructure in-house, but actually house it on servers under the control of another company), then they can't tell you how the data about you is stored(because some of those methods are proprietary to the outsourcer). Can you get a copy of the contract's security provisions that they take on behalf of your identity? We aren't talking about whether or not you like so and so sports star here, we are talking about enough info to make you apply for a credit card without your knowledge. That identifying data HAS to belong to you, because it's part of your identity.
While collecting trivia about my shopping preferences can certainly fall under copyright law as compiling information, how can information that allows you to impersonate me, belong to you? The information is sufficiently personal to me, that a third party acting in good faith checks those informations, and expects you to be me.
Wouldn't the reputation of the companies that the customers that information was about require some form of insurance/bond to cover their own loss of reputation over this? Of course, you missed the 114 "identities" compromised part of the post, and concentrated on the gigabytes.
If the data can support identity theft, that means people can use it to forge identities, and commit identity and credit fraud. That's why the number is high, not, the amount of data. It's how sensitive(and eventually useful to a criminal) that makes the data's value.
*trying not to feed the troll*
The problem is not just to monitor the traffic, but to apply uncircumventable precautions against unallowed behaviour. For a similar, yet a lot tougher solution, my cable provider blocks a port(port 80 right now) at the Cable Broadband Router level(the other side of my connection) and similarly, a DSL provider could do the same at the DSLAM level. That most providers don't do this is that
1) it increases the per-user cpu cost at the edge of their network
2) it increases the support calls(as not a single one of them has had the balls(yet) to my knowledge to announce it in public fora(and they are similarly afraid to announce it to their users, despite that it could actually be marketed as a good thing: we protect you from this, so your bills are more likely to stay low)
Putting it on the other side of the demarc is putting provider policy control on the client's side of the link, which is generally a bad idea.
We can never rebuild the trust. The original trust was built on a select clientele, a sort of private club, if you will. Now the internet is a commodity, and for a lot of people, a facet of the right to expression. You will build protocols that handle mistrust better, and that will work, but you will not be able to go back to trusting everyone.
How nice of you to suggest making bilingual people suffer, such a nice thought. There are lots of places in the world where a single town speaks more than one language(hint: there are six languages with at least a hundred thousand people speaking them in the city I'm in, and it's not that big. I speak two and a half myself, do I really want to pick and choose?), and doing as you suggest, instead of listing "spoken" or "acceptable" languages per-user, is not a solution for a lot of those cases. For that matter, what about those brazilians that do speak english, they can't invite english people? or they can't invite other brazilians?
For a site like Orkut, the only thing that would make sense is a multi-language re-architecturing, to keep track of language preferences properly, quick hacks will just show how brittle the one-size-fits-all english approach, and how limitative of the power of expression of a whole planet. Until the USA actually gets countries to outlaw speaking languages other than English, those "international" dot-com sites should just get with the program.
I want to hear about it...
My biggest complain is that users who get ANY smtp error either ignore them, or assume the domain is down(i.e. server-type error) when the most common errors in my setup are user-type errors(user sent a virus and got a bounce, user mispelt an email address, user sent mail to someone over quota...).
I wonder how much can be blamed on email clients meant to curry favor with users who don't want to bother with fine distinctions(some email clients who assume users CAN learn how to use computers, unfortunately they are the minority) and how much is compatibility with legacy/non-smtp email systems, and those people coming from custom setups(aol/compuserve) that would be an interesting research for someone who's bored I'm sure.
We're arguing about the olympics here, anyone bothered to look up the IOC's definition of a sport? Maybe it would be a lot more productive than picking each dictionary's definition, since dictionaries have to follow usage, and don't necessarily carry formal distinctions.
d f
according to http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.p
Math and Chess could theoretically be accepted as disciplines, since events mention performance, as ranked between individuals, and discriminate against mechanical propulsion not against non-physical activity(which is good, since pistol shooting mostly involves standing still, among other Olympic Sports)
There remains the non-techie idea idea that Chess and Math are competitive disciplines, but not sports, since the laws of physics, which affect the results of all the other sports, don't affect the results of Math or Chess. Let me clarify:
If I submit a proof, and you submit a proof, the proof is correct or not correct, the wind blowing over our heads will not affect it, your weight will not affect it, your physical state will have the barest influence possible on the proof you present.
Now this just may be a prejudice, but most sports involve bettering your body, and any mental improvement in coincidental, while Math and Chess improve your mind, and any body improvement is either coincidental, or of little impact to the practice of the discipline.
Since Math and Chess have so little in common with sports, we need to classify them as something other than sports. I propose Mental Disciplines.
We can certainly lobby for Mental Disciplines to be included in some future Olympics, but let's keep things clear until we do.
I can't speak for the US, but the Nokias practically invented the free phone with plan in Canada(I know Motorola did it first, but it was rare for them to do it, until they got to using Nokia phones).
I have something that I don't understand:
You have CIOs etc... going "X is more secure, that's why we picked X"
We have CIOs not funding the applications of patches, refusing to pay for overtime/downtime/maintenance windows so patches don't get applied.
Maybe the mythical "more secure" they hope will happen is that they HOPE(more like pray) that they can actually find a system that doesn't NEED to get patched?
Sure would explain why the exploits are multiplying.
most people who have transition problems from Windows to Linux don't stay long enough to have been considered to use Linux at all.
Most to-Linux switches are hundreds of desktops at a time, and are not entered into lightly, and are not backed away from once started.
That accounts for the difference you mention.
It doesn't make sense to me, since the whole Nokia dominance thing came up with Nokia having more store space than almost every other company, and their phones being the most included with plans in the beginning. Having that many models means some of them will not be in all stores, which means no matter how much choice Nokia offers, the consumers won't see all of them.
So Nokia will pay R&D and marketing, but it will not reach potential users.
Anyone else sees this as a "Nokia can't get so and so feature on the same single phone, so they're trying to have a model per feature, instead of doing research on what features go together in users minds, and concentrating on those models which will actually satisfy them"?
In other markets it makes sense to concentrate a company's strengths to where the most impact is felt, why isn't Nokia doing that?