The battle won't be won because stupid people insist on running Windows and running every attachment mail their way and every pirated software they get from warez sites.
Funny, that. I'm a Windows XP user, and I download quite a bit of questionable software but I haven't had any virus for the last couple of years. The problem is not with Windows, the problem is with stupid people. A bit of education would easily reduce the size of botnets a lot.
How can you be sure? Botnet viruses try to make themselves as unnoticeable as possible.
Yeah, it would make it a very effective blackmailing tool. "Nice server you have there for your business. It would be too bad if your provider were told you were controlling a botnet from there..."
Yes, you could then get the server up again by proving that you didn't have any botnet activity on it. But until then, you already lost serious money.
We don't know what really went on. Maybe the botnet operators have a second botnet, and after detection of the attack they decided to temporally only use the other one in order to make the attacker think the attacked botnet were dead and lose interest in it.
And you surely would like it if your business comes to a screeching halt, just because you happen to have your server hosted by a provider who also hosts a server which some researchers claim to be a botnet server, and your provider doesn't believe them.
He mentioned things like reading things written on his grandparents' photos. I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect the economy the least bit if he can't (unless they happened to write down an important invention there, in which case reading it would of course make a large impact; but that's very unlikely, and you'll not see it in the economic data anyway because you don't have the alternate universe data to compare).
For me this raises the question; if an emo watches emoRate. Should emoRate show the emo video material matching the emo's emotional state and thus amplifying and affirming emo's emotions entering a self-referencing emo-loop...
Or should one design an algorithm detecting emotional changes of users watching emoRate, and serve emo content countering emo's current emotional state in the opposite direction?
I'd say that depends on whether it's a positive or negative emotion. If I feel extraordinary happy, I certainly don't want to be shown photos countering that. On the other hand, if I'm very sad, seeing pictures which counter that sadness might be very welcome.
Say, distilling your facebook data:
"subject x in agerange y who lists keyswords a,b,c as interest matches category 'Emo'." "category 'Emo' responds well to imagery of young kittens yet negative being presented by imagery of maternal figures"
Sounds like an advertiser's wet dream. Targeted advertising based on your personal emotional profile!
However it has been shown that your face expression does affect your emotions. So if he was doing those face expressions intentionally during the actual test, it may well have affected the results.
Of course you could combine both: Use a mail provider with https access to communicate messages hidden in images. That way you'll have the best of both worlds: Your mail traffic by itself will not draw any suspicion, but if the government gets suspicious and gets your account data, you have plausible deniability, because all you got are holiday photos. Of course, this assumes that it's not easy to check if there are messages hidden in a photo, and also that you can effectively hide the steganography program itself (because if they find that on your hard disk, that would diminish the plausibility of your denial).
If the nurse knows that they could kill someone by connecting the wrong tubes, then it would be negligent manslaughter for them not to double check.
And you believe that double-check reduces the number of errors to zero? Not to mention that in certain situations, the risk of the patient dying due to the extra time of the double check may actually be higher than the risk of the patient dying because of the risk to have erred the first time.
Would you treat that programmer the same way as a tired over worked nurse? Probably not.
And yet we have in programming "incompatible tubes". It's called strong typing. And it's exactly there in order to prevent programmer errors. And yes, there are ways to "it incompatible tubes together" (known as typecasting). And sure as hell some people use this to fit together "wrong tubes" and produce bugs waiting to happen. Yet most people would agree that in general strong typing reduces the number of errors which slip through.
You know, cell phones have a very useful functionality: You can switch them off. The advantage of a switched-off cell phone vs. no cell phone is that you can quickly get a working cell phone in case you need one: Just switch it on. Moreover, you get great times between battery recharges this way.
Slashdot Mirror
The battle won't be won because stupid people insist on running Windows and running every attachment mail their way and every pirated software they get from warez sites.
Funny, that. I'm a Windows XP user, and I download quite a bit of questionable software but I haven't had any virus for the last couple of years. The problem is not with Windows, the problem is with stupid people. A bit of education would easily reduce the size of botnets a lot.
How can you be sure? Botnet viruses try to make themselves as unnoticeable as possible.
Yeah, it would make it a very effective blackmailing tool. "Nice server you have there for your business. It would be too bad if your provider were told you were controlling a botnet from there ..."
Yes, you could then get the server up again by proving that you didn't have any botnet activity on it. But until then, you already lost serious money.
We don't know what really went on. Maybe the botnet operators have a second botnet, and after detection of the attack they decided to temporally only use the other one in order to make the attacker think the attacked botnet were dead and lose interest in it.
Two ^W, please.
And you surely would like it if your business comes to a screeching halt, just because you happen to have your server hosted by a provider who also hosts a server which some researchers claim to be a botnet server, and your provider doesn't believe them.
Yes, that's because they live in basements where windows wouldn't be of any use anyway.
He mentioned things like reading things written on his grandparents' photos. I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect the economy the least bit if he can't (unless they happened to write down an important invention there, in which case reading it would of course make a large impact; but that's very unlikely, and you'll not see it in the economic data anyway because you don't have the alternate universe data to compare).
That gives me ¥. :-)
However, AltGr-Shift-A gives me Æ.
Hmmm ... if you combine this with something like Dasher, you would be able to thought-type.
I'd say that depends on whether it's a positive or negative emotion. If I feel extraordinary happy, I certainly don't want to be shown photos countering that. On the other hand, if I'm very sad, seeing pictures which counter that sadness might be very welcome.
Sounds like an advertiser's wet dream. Targeted advertising based on your personal emotional profile!
However it has been shown that your face expression does affect your emotions. So if he was doing those face expressions intentionally during the actual test, it may well have affected the results.
Actually GTK came first, and GNOME came later and used it. There's a reason why GTK is short for "Gimp TookKit" ...
Where?
Well, just start flooding your Facebook account with anti-Facebook stuff. I guess you'll get your account cancelled really quick.
Yes, but how does the receiver find out which spam contains the hidden message?
Obviously the true reason for 9/11 was to have lots of video footage distributed world wide, in which they could hide messages. :-)
Of course you could combine both: Use a mail provider with https access to communicate messages hidden in images. That way you'll have the best of both worlds: Your mail traffic by itself will not draw any suspicion, but if the government gets suspicious and gets your account data, you have plausible deniability, because all you got are holiday photos. Of course, this assumes that it's not easy to check if there are messages hidden in a photo, and also that you can effectively hide the steganography program itself (because if they find that on your hard disk, that would diminish the plausibility of your denial).
See http://it.slashdot.org/story/04/04/08/1224205/Hidden-Messages-in-Spam (note the end of the last sentence)
Actually I was searching for another Slashdot story about hiding messages in spam, but I cannot find it.
I see, you are hiding secret text in Slashdot troll messages.
Not if you use prepaid.
So you are saying that because we cannot eliminate all errors, we should eliminate none?
And you believe that double-check reduces the number of errors to zero?
Not to mention that in certain situations, the risk of the patient dying due to the extra time of the double check may actually be higher than the risk of the patient dying because of the risk to have erred the first time.
And yet we have in programming "incompatible tubes". It's called strong typing. And it's exactly there in order to prevent programmer errors. And yes, there are ways to "it incompatible tubes together" (known as typecasting). And sure as hell some people use this to fit together "wrong tubes" and produce bugs waiting to happen. Yet most people would agree that in general strong typing reduces the number of errors which slip through.
Sure, because there are humans who never make mistakes, especially under stress ...
You know, cell phones have a very useful functionality: You can switch them off. The advantage of a switched-off cell phone vs. no cell phone is that you can quickly get a working cell phone in case you need one: Just switch it on. Moreover, you get great times between battery recharges this way.