>> An email address isn't private... I suspect that MD5 was just a convenient way to get a fixed length id. I'd be more worried about collisions, but i'm too lazy to calculate how many avatars would be required before that might become a problem.
>> Sorry "editors" but many of us have no clue what this article is about [[Busybox]] based on the two sentence summary about a guy [[Busybox]] and company I have never heard of. Perhaps a little more explanation would help?
Sorry, I just got a nosebleed by looking at your user number. Please stop embarrassing yourself and STFW.
>> I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
I'll grab the two largest slices (which are usually adjacent), fold them over and shovel them in my mouth while you are still negotiating a protocol. And I'll pull over extra cheese and toppings from their neighbors while I'm doing it.
>> Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?
because ignorance of the law is no excuse for the law.
>> PayPal needs to become a regulated bank. Until then, take your business elsewhere, to sites that accept credit cards. If someone can't qualify for a merchant account, you probably don't want to deal with them anyway.
You are confusing things. PayPal is fine for the buyer, and is usually better that creating another account to buy one time something.
For the seller, they are terrible^4. This is why Google Checkout is taking over.
I buy things from Google Products all the time. As a buyer, there is a lot of value in that simple checkout process.
>> I'm waiting for "All it ever did was keep the #'s secure" and "you only ever have to trust 1 person online" to seem like a BAD thing. I mean, there has to be a problem with that for them to be throwing that way. Maybe you can explain it to me.
I'll explain. Imagine using Pandora or Lala or whatever kids use these days to listen to music. You like some very obscure artist, and want to buy the (physical) CD online. To buy the CD you can:
a) Give your email address (and wait for that confirmation email), credit card, & password b) Click "buy with paypal"
---------- this is just like the different between giving your "real" number or your google voice number to people you meet at the bar. since your tastes may change between now and when they want to call you back, this could be valuable.
Who would these anti-anti-piracy ads appeal to? Telling people to stop watching movies they want to watch? Or political activism to get people to lobby TPTB to create another "czar" to regulate more things?
If your name is an obvious fake it will be deleted. I have had over 20 FB names deleted over the years that I have used for harvesting. And no, it wasn't my script, because the other accounts that sounded like real names still worked.
I have followed FB from the beginning and their security/privacy was always an issue. If you remember in the beginning, you could edit search URLs to pull up non-public photos and profiles. Recently (2008), their advertising pages and other things made up on the fly are all vulnerable to XSS/XSRF. Lack of transparency is a huge no-no in a world of infinite archiving, the Streissand effect and TPTB. Add this to their insecure-by-design application framework, and the leaked source code showing addition photo-view logging in 2006 and this is starting to become a net liability on society.
>> So the process is: >> >> 1. Put injured people in suspended animation >> 2. Extract soul (or whatever makes us non-zombies) >> 3. Reanimate the meatbags >> 4. train meatbags to vote for the political party of your choice [and tithe] >> 5. Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
ok -- so this technology has failed.
since the savings is from the energy use of the bulb, one solution would be to have LED and incandescent bulbs together, and switch when necessary.
>> Wooly mammoth? Dodo? Passenger pigeon?
Republicans that believe in smaller government?
>> ***IAAL. IANYourL. This post is not legal advice. Don't rely on it for any reason.***
*** THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING YOUR LEGAL POLICY ***
That's not a problem for me:
"Hey nerd! Get out of here, I'm a paying customer and I'm trying to sit down and eat"
"we didn't reject the new Firefox Mobile Browse app from running on iPhones and iPod touches... it's still 'under review'"
Yes. For a birthday attack, math says you need about one square root of the number of items to get a collision.
2^64 is a lot of items, which is why hashing is still useful.
But back to TFA, these items should be salted with a secret salt to make the data unusable to outsiders.
eg: md5('mypass'+$youremail) = useless information to hackers
>> What if I already wasn't worried about being sued because my country doesn't recognise software patents
Then you can add extradition, police acting in extralegal ways and WIPO to the list of things you don't worry about.
Wow... peer review, remember that?
Don't forget to add Wine to the comparison - they up to v1.0.1 now.
And if you are using a Mac, that means you should consider Wine Bottler. It's like CrossoverOver, but it's better and free.
>> An email address isn't private... I suspect that MD5 was just a convenient way to get a fixed length id. I'd be more worried about collisions, but i'm too lazy to calculate how many avatars would be required before that might become a problem.
2^128^.5 = 2^64
Phew, I'll have to take a break after that one.
>> Sorry "editors" but many of us have no clue what this article is about [[Busybox]] based on the two sentence summary about a guy [[Busybox]] and company I have never heard of. Perhaps a little more explanation would help?
Sorry, I just got a nosebleed by looking at your user number. Please stop embarrassing yourself and STFW.
>> I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
wrong.
please see above.
I'll grab the two largest slices (which are usually adjacent), fold them over and shovel them in my mouth while you are still negotiating a protocol. And I'll pull over extra cheese and toppings from their neighbors while I'm doing it.
This is the same way that electricity is sold between providers -- on 6-minute interval bidding arrangements.
Of course, today only Amazon is providing the service.
>> Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?
because ignorance of the law is no excuse for the law.
>> PayPal needs to become a regulated bank. Until then, take your business elsewhere, to sites that accept credit cards. If someone can't qualify for a merchant account, you probably don't want to deal with them anyway.
You are confusing things. PayPal is fine for the buyer, and is usually better that creating another account to buy one time something.
For the seller, they are terrible^4. This is why Google Checkout is taking over.
I buy things from Google Products all the time. As a buyer, there is a lot of value in that simple checkout process.
>> I'm waiting for "All it ever did was keep the #'s secure" and "you only ever have to trust 1 person online" to seem like a BAD thing. I mean, there has to be a problem with that for them to be throwing that way. Maybe you can explain it to me.
I'll explain. Imagine using Pandora or Lala or whatever kids use these days to listen to music. You like some very obscure artist, and want to buy the (physical) CD online. To buy the CD you can:
a) Give your email address (and wait for that confirmation email), credit card, & password
b) Click "buy with paypal"
----------
this is just like the different between giving your "real" number or your google voice number to people you meet at the bar. since your tastes may change between now and when they want to call you back, this could be valuable.
... and yes, that's the way it should be.
Who would these anti-anti-piracy ads appeal to? Telling people to stop watching movies they want to watch? Or political activism to get people to lobby TPTB to create another "czar" to regulate more things?
If your name is an obvious fake it will be deleted. I have had over 20 FB names deleted over the years that I have used for harvesting. And no, it wasn't my script, because the other accounts that sounded like real names still worked.
I have followed FB from the beginning and their security/privacy was always an issue. If you remember in the beginning, you could edit search URLs to pull up non-public photos and profiles. Recently (2008), their advertising pages and other things made up on the fly are all vulnerable to XSS/XSRF. Lack of transparency is a huge no-no in a world of infinite archiving, the Streissand effect and TPTB. Add this to their insecure-by-design application framework, and the leaked source code showing addition photo-view logging in 2006 and this is starting to become a net liability on society.
the optimal solution in a situation like that requires each cell to make probabilistic and independent decisions.
This sounds like a legit rule to me.
If friends lists are public (and they now are, because FB no longer allows you to hide that), then by friending someone you make a public statement.
I think public statements should be taken seriously if made by people in official positions.
>> Sure, you can leave immediately. But, without voiding the warranty on your phone, you can't use it on any other network.
Anyone, please reply to this comment if you have ever used the iPhone warranty.
People are doing this. Log in to your favorite tracker and find peers that "have the content" but will send it to you.
As for the filtering, yes there is an obvious "dont send hatemail to D.C." rule which is manually instituted.
>> So the process is:
>>
>> 1. Put injured people in suspended animation
>> 2. Extract soul (or whatever makes us non-zombies)
>> 3. Reanimate the meatbags
>> 4. train meatbags to vote for the political party of your choice [and tithe]
>> 5. Profit!
They already do this -- it's called religion.
Sales of turntables are significantly lifted by sales of the Serato Scratch Live software package.