Moreover.com is a company that's been around for a few years, in the business of crawling news websites and sorting the headlines into newsfeeds. They used to have a very open API so that programmers and website designers could use their database for free, but they've since pulled down that information. (However, I notice tht a screen saver I wrote for myself back 4 years ago using their headlines for my area still works very well to this day...)
Moreover can hardly be called biased... Fucked Company also uses them for newsfeeds as well. If you can please both Pud and Bill at the same time, you must be doing something right.
See, it looks like they're judging headlines with a "popularity index" counting how many time users click stories. Since./ is the only place this site seems to be loudly announced right now, we the Slashdot readers are biasing sampling, and clicking on the pro-MS and pro-SCO stories more than anything else and moving them to the top, then coming back here, yelling "Bias!", which drives more/.'s to the site... rinse. wash. repeat.
If this is right... think we could try to create some odd results as a group?
There will always be a human champion of chess, and eventually a well-recognized competition for a computer championship will form. Just like when there were two major baseball leagues or two major football leagues, there will be challenges issued for a man vs. machine playoff every so often... so there arguably will be a new "Grand Championship" title created...
Yes, but the one victory for X3D Fritz was made possible due to a blunder. Humans can choke sometimes, computers never do anything that stupid in one move. Of course, that's something we already knew.
See, here's the real problem. The cashier works for the store, and the store's interest is in making the sale. If the store doesn't stop a fraudulent transaction... the store hasn't been robbed. The transaction goes through, it's the bank that's left holding the bag.
Maybe the death was never properly reported to DHHS... why assume a fraudster would play by the rules?
They're not going to investigate because you're a disinterested third party. If they just took your word for the need to look into it, they'd get distracted with too many false reports, that's why they want you to produce paperwork.
If he's making the payments, the credit card issuer doesn't particularly care about the fraud... they're still getting paid and they're not out anything. Law enforcement would care, but they don't usually go fishing for such a fraud. However, if he ever gets investigated for any other crime, they'll stumble into an easy to prove charge that they can bring him in on right away... and also pile a few years onto his sentantces for the other crimes.
Now, if he ever thinks he can stop making the payments, the house of cards is gonna colapse. Then the credit card will realize they're trying to collect from a dead person, and that'll start them looking...
The problem with any digital matching system is that the fingerprint (or eyeball, or what have you) gets reduced down to a number. Eventually, somebody will come up with the same number as the result of hashing their measurement as well. It's not a question of if, but when... you can do things to lower the likelyhood, but you'll never be able to eliminate the chance. If you have a "1 in a 100 million" chance of the failure, and roll this out to the American public, you'll get the unlucky match eventually.
How do they fix that problem? You can't exactly reissue a fingerprint...
Yes, but the conventional credit card transaction is two-tests. You must possess a card with the number on it, and produce a signature with somebody watching you. Yeah, faking a signature is possible, but faking both the card and signature takes a little more work.
If the eyeball reader either gets tricked, or worse, tricks itself by deciding that your eye today looks more like someone else's (a problem that will eventually worsen the larger the matching database gets...) there needs to be some backup challenge... the odds of two challenges failing at the same time will always be greater than any one challenge can ever come up with.
The age old test of "Something you know, something you have, something you are" security reenforces an extra point... challenging three times is always more secure than challenging once!
ATMs are secured this way. You've gotta have your card, know your pin, and look somewhat like you for the camera. (Looking wrong doesn't yet deny the transaction... but is a great tool when it comes to figuring out the "Whodunit?" that comes up when ATM fraud is discovered.)
In-store credit cards are slightly less secure. The card has to be present, and the person using the card has to perform the task of creating the proper signature that's on the card. (Again, a wrong signature might not always deny the transaction, but it creates a paper trail for later.) Some stores are advanced enough to also associate the security camera timecode to the transaction to create the visual trail as well, but that's not used as much as it could be as of yet.
Internet or phone card transactions are weaker because there's no demand that either a card or person been seen. That's why those transactions are also more expensive to get processed... they're more likely to result in a write-off from a scam transaction. They are less secure, and that's an admission of it. Still, smart e-merchants can protect themselves by performing some secondary security like only shipping to addresses related to the card.
Biometrics if used alone just the "somethng you are" test, but as we've seen it's going to be confused some of the time. Merging the fingerprint with a PIN number would at least get us to a two-test level of security... but the marketers of biometrics are insisting that their test alone is good enough. That's where they're seriously wrong, no test alone will ever be that good... that's why it's always best to double-check.
So your fingerprint becomes your SpeedPass or EZ-Pass... so what? Neither existing system is actually a financial system, they're an identifer that tracks back to an existing credit card number, that's the actual financial account.
So, really, what's the incentive for a consumer to want to use their fingerprint rather than something hanging on their keychain or in their wallet. Yeah, the keychain or wallet can be stolen... but safety laws already exist to protect your accounts.
In short, the current system isn't that broken... this solution has privacy concerns attached. Seems like the answer to a question nobody's asking...
There's already stopgaps against that problem. When a person is reported to the Social Security Administration as dead, the SSA retires their number, and publishes it on a list of dead numbers. Banks (which all Credit Card Companies are on the inside) keep a watch on that list, and freeze any accounts tied to SSNs that appear on it until they get further information. Look up the story of anybody who has wrongly been reported dead on that list and you'll see that they can get nothing done with everything but the cash in their wallet not working...
Like I said, this is a supplement, not a replacement. It sacrafices accuracy in exchange for speed. If placed ahead of a conventional IPS, your IPS will have much less traffic to check during an attack, therefore preventing a potential clog in the network.
I think the concept is for it to be the device itself, making its decision based on patterns that just plain shouldn't appear in normal traffic. If people all over the world are sending the exact same long message into your network, something's up and it's likely not good.
- If the same e-mail attachment comes through your network a few hundred times, it must be a virus. - If the same kilobyte-long web address keeps getting requested, it must be a worm. - If the same messages are headed to your NetBIOS ports, it must be the pop-up-message spam of the week. In fact, if somebody wants to deliver any message any kind to all of your ports one-by-one, it must be the exploit of the week.
This seems to be all about patern matching... the device isn't meant to replace your firewall and antivirus systems, but to be faster than them and to take off the work load of having to identify this week's worm when it comes in for the 34,939th time. This might even be useful for ISPs to cut off D-DOS attempts before entering the major traffic exchages so that less of traffic makes it to the victim's bandwidth pipe.
It's a violation of credit card contracts to offer a discount for paying cash, because that'd be the same as charging a surchage for using credit. The credit card networks frown on passing the merchant fees off to the consumers...
Yes. Using a credit card account and not having any late payments associated with it establish a track record of being able to send ontime payments, and also the ability to know one's own limits and not make purchases that they can't afford to pay back.
Lenders are now relying on a score called FICO from the Fair Issac corperation as the benchmark of a consumer's credit quality. The exact formula is kept secret, but it is known that indicators of past payment history contribute 30% of the overall score. If a consumer doesn't have any account that is reporting on-time payments to the credit reporting services, then they will score poorly in that section. Not as poorly as somebody who has a history of skipping payments, but still not as good as somebody who has held on to the same credit card for several years with no missed payments.
Using a debit card in place of a credit card doesn't create a credit history. The decuction from your account happens instantly, and is rejected if the account can't support the decution... there's no loan involved, so no chance for you to screw up on paying back the loan. Basically, their trust in a new consumer is built up by giving them the chance to screw up, and then giving them more trust for having not screwed up.
Income and current debt load are also components in the formula, but to get a near-perfect score and therefore the best rates you score well in all of the sections.
The DMCA's must-takedown-now clauses might not have been the proper thing to invoke, but it's clear that if FatWallet were to leave up the posts in question, they could accused of distributing trade secret information that they could not possibly possess by legal means at this time. Compling with BB's wishes is the easy way out, because this would be a testcase that wins the battle of the DMCA but would overall lose the war of keeping FatWallet and money together.
This is a replay of what happened last year. FatWallet deletes pre-release information as soon as it gets a DMCA threat... because although it's questionable whether the DMCA is the right law to apply, it is clear that this is information FatWallet is not allowed to have on its webboard because it is a trade secret until it is published. It's not worth fighting it because this would be a bad choice of testcase...
The telecasts have begun on ESPN2 at the start of play, but so far all of them have been kicked over to sister network ESPNews because they ran longer than their allotted airtime. Today's game, however, got bumped off of ESPNews to make room for NFL highlights today, so the chess coverage was regulated to two-minute live updates during the football coverage. Why did ESPN allow a match to be scheduled for today knowing that they would have run out of networks on which to put the full telecast unless an early blunder would be made?
It's fully expected that Tuesday's match will also spill into ESPNews territory as well, but at least they should be able to air the conclusion live since it will be weekday with no major sports events scheduled for the daytime.
That's a double-jump because there's actual copyrighted material being protected by CSS...
What we've gotten out of this ruling is that a garage door opening signal code isn't art, and therefore can't enjoy a copyright. Therefore, it doesn't look good for a chip that emits a signal that communicates a message that equates to nothing more than "I'm made by Lexmark."
At this point, the disputed info isn't a price. The prices of the items today or in the past are what can't be copyrighted, but this information is a price from the future that hasn't been released yet. You don't need to sign an NDA to walk into a store, but you do have to if you have the Black Friday prices this early. Clearly, somebody leaked. Therefore, the stores should have the right to contain the breach by not allowing that info to be republished any further.
The connection is this. The "doorbuster" specials you see on the morning of Black Friday are loss leader selections designed to get you in their store first that day, in the hope that you'll make other purchases where all things are equal between all stores with them since you're already there.
If other stores get wind of the loss leader selections with time to react, and duplicate them, suddenly all of the punch of the loss leader is lost. If everybody knew everybody's loss leaders ahead, there'd be no point in having them so they'd go away and return back to regular market pricing.
Remember, the definition of a loss leader is a product that the store is intentionally losing money on as one of the ultimate motivators to get people to come to the store. This is one of the few times in your life you'll ever be able to buy at retail something for less than it costs at wholesale. Be nice to the stores when they're doing this... having laws protect the secrecy around Black Friday is needed if you want to have another one next year.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover.com is a company that's been around for a few years, in the business of crawling news websites and sorting the headlines into newsfeeds. They used to have a very open API so that programmers and website designers could use their database for free, but they've since pulled down that information. (However, I notice tht a screen saver I wrote for myself back 4 years ago using their headlines for my area still works very well to this day...)
Moreover can hardly be called biased... Fucked Company also uses them for newsfeeds as well. If you can please both Pud and Bill at the same time, you must be doing something right.
This bias claim seems to be self-fulfilling.
./ is the only place this site seems to be loudly announced right now, we the Slashdot readers are biasing sampling, and clicking on the pro-MS and pro-SCO stories more than anything else and moving them to the top, then coming back here, yelling "Bias!", which drives more /.'s to the site... rinse. wash. repeat.
See, it looks like they're judging headlines with a "popularity index" counting how many time users click stories. Since
If this is right... think we could try to create some odd results as a group?
But they can't use a valuable piece to take him out, he's protected by a pawn at all times.
There will always be a human champion of chess, and eventually a well-recognized competition for a computer championship will form. Just like when there were two major baseball leagues or two major football leagues, there will be challenges issued for a man vs. machine playoff every so often... so there arguably will be a new "Grand Championship" title created...
Yes, but the one victory for X3D Fritz was made possible due to a blunder. Humans can choke sometimes, computers never do anything that stupid in one move. Of course, that's something we already knew.
See, here's the real problem. The cashier works for the store, and the store's interest is in making the sale. If the store doesn't stop a fraudulent transaction... the store hasn't been robbed. The transaction goes through, it's the bank that's left holding the bag.
Maybe the death was never properly reported to DHHS... why assume a fraudster would play by the rules?
They're not going to investigate because you're a disinterested third party. If they just took your word for the need to look into it, they'd get distracted with too many false reports, that's why they want you to produce paperwork.
If he's making the payments, the credit card issuer doesn't particularly care about the fraud... they're still getting paid and they're not out anything. Law enforcement would care, but they don't usually go fishing for such a fraud. However, if he ever gets investigated for any other crime, they'll stumble into an easy to prove charge that they can bring him in on right away... and also pile a few years onto his sentantces for the other crimes.
Now, if he ever thinks he can stop making the payments, the house of cards is gonna colapse. Then the credit card will realize they're trying to collect from a dead person, and that'll start them looking...
The problem with any digital matching system is that the fingerprint (or eyeball, or what have you) gets reduced down to a number. Eventually, somebody will come up with the same number as the result of hashing their measurement as well. It's not a question of if, but when... you can do things to lower the likelyhood, but you'll never be able to eliminate the chance. If you have a "1 in a 100 million" chance of the failure, and roll this out to the American public, you'll get the unlucky match eventually.
How do they fix that problem? You can't exactly reissue a fingerprint...
Yes, but the conventional credit card transaction is two-tests. You must possess a card with the number on it, and produce a signature with somebody watching you. Yeah, faking a signature is possible, but faking both the card and signature takes a little more work.
If the eyeball reader either gets tricked, or worse, tricks itself by deciding that your eye today looks more like someone else's (a problem that will eventually worsen the larger the matching database gets...) there needs to be some backup challenge... the odds of two challenges failing at the same time will always be greater than any one challenge can ever come up with.
The age old test of "Something you know, something you have, something you are" security reenforces an extra point... challenging three times is always more secure than challenging once!
ATMs are secured this way. You've gotta have your card, know your pin, and look somewhat like you for the camera. (Looking wrong doesn't yet deny the transaction... but is a great tool when it comes to figuring out the "Whodunit?" that comes up when ATM fraud is discovered.)
In-store credit cards are slightly less secure. The card has to be present, and the person using the card has to perform the task of creating the proper signature that's on the card. (Again, a wrong signature might not always deny the transaction, but it creates a paper trail for later.) Some stores are advanced enough to also associate the security camera timecode to the transaction to create the visual trail as well, but that's not used as much as it could be as of yet.
Internet or phone card transactions are weaker because there's no demand that either a card or person been seen. That's why those transactions are also more expensive to get processed... they're more likely to result in a write-off from a scam transaction. They are less secure, and that's an admission of it. Still, smart e-merchants can protect themselves by performing some secondary security like only shipping to addresses related to the card.
Biometrics if used alone just the "somethng you are" test, but as we've seen it's going to be confused some of the time. Merging the fingerprint with a PIN number would at least get us to a two-test level of security... but the marketers of biometrics are insisting that their test alone is good enough. That's where they're seriously wrong, no test alone will ever be that good... that's why it's always best to double-check.
So your fingerprint becomes your SpeedPass or EZ-Pass... so what? Neither existing system is actually a financial system, they're an identifer that tracks back to an existing credit card number, that's the actual financial account.
So, really, what's the incentive for a consumer to want to use their fingerprint rather than something hanging on their keychain or in their wallet. Yeah, the keychain or wallet can be stolen... but safety laws already exist to protect your accounts.
In short, the current system isn't that broken... this solution has privacy concerns attached. Seems like the answer to a question nobody's asking...
There's already stopgaps against that problem. When a person is reported to the Social Security Administration as dead, the SSA retires their number, and publishes it on a list of dead numbers. Banks (which all Credit Card Companies are on the inside) keep a watch on that list, and freeze any accounts tied to SSNs that appear on it until they get further information. Look up the story of anybody who has wrongly been reported dead on that list and you'll see that they can get nothing done with everything but the cash in their wallet not working...
Like I said, this is a supplement, not a replacement. It sacrafices accuracy in exchange for speed. If placed ahead of a conventional IPS, your IPS will have much less traffic to check during an attack, therefore preventing a potential clog in the network.
I think the concept is for it to be the device itself, making its decision based on patterns that just plain shouldn't appear in normal traffic. If people all over the world are sending the exact same long message into your network, something's up and it's likely not good.
- If the same e-mail attachment comes through your network a few hundred times, it must be a virus.
- If the same kilobyte-long web address keeps getting requested, it must be a worm.
- If the same messages are headed to your NetBIOS ports, it must be the pop-up-message spam of the week. In fact, if somebody wants to deliver any message any kind to all of your ports one-by-one, it must be the exploit of the week.
This seems to be all about patern matching... the device isn't meant to replace your firewall and antivirus systems, but to be faster than them and to take off the work load of having to identify this week's worm when it comes in for the 34,939th time. This might even be useful for ISPs to cut off D-DOS attempts before entering the major traffic exchages so that less of traffic makes it to the victim's bandwidth pipe.
It's a violation of credit card contracts to offer a discount for paying cash, because that'd be the same as charging a surchage for using credit. The credit card networks frown on passing the merchant fees off to the consumers...
Yes. Using a credit card account and not having any late payments associated with it establish a track record of being able to send ontime payments, and also the ability to know one's own limits and not make purchases that they can't afford to pay back.
Lenders are now relying on a score called FICO from the Fair Issac corperation as the benchmark of a consumer's credit quality. The exact formula is kept secret, but it is known that indicators of past payment history contribute 30% of the overall score. If a consumer doesn't have any account that is reporting on-time payments to the credit reporting services, then they will score poorly in that section. Not as poorly as somebody who has a history of skipping payments, but still not as good as somebody who has held on to the same credit card for several years with no missed payments.
Using a debit card in place of a credit card doesn't create a credit history. The decuction from your account happens instantly, and is rejected if the account can't support the decution... there's no loan involved, so no chance for you to screw up on paying back the loan. Basically, their trust in a new consumer is built up by giving them the chance to screw up, and then giving them more trust for having not screwed up.
Income and current debt load are also components in the formula, but to get a near-perfect score and therefore the best rates you score well in all of the sections.
The DMCA's must-takedown-now clauses might not have been the proper thing to invoke, but it's clear that if FatWallet were to leave up the posts in question, they could accused of distributing trade secret information that they could not possibly possess by legal means at this time. Compling with BB's wishes is the easy way out, because this would be a testcase that wins the battle of the DMCA but would overall lose the war of keeping FatWallet and money together.
This is a replay of what happened last year. FatWallet deletes pre-release information as soon as it gets a DMCA threat... because although it's questionable whether the DMCA is the right law to apply, it is clear that this is information FatWallet is not allowed to have on its webboard because it is a trade secret until it is published. It's not worth fighting it because this would be a bad choice of testcase...
This match may be in 3d, but I can assure you ping speeds are not an issue. :)
The telecasts have begun on ESPN2 at the start of play, but so far all of them have been kicked over to sister network ESPNews because they ran longer than their allotted airtime. Today's game, however, got bumped off of ESPNews to make room for NFL highlights today, so the chess coverage was regulated to two-minute live updates during the football coverage. Why did ESPN allow a match to be scheduled for today knowing that they would have run out of networks on which to put the full telecast unless an early blunder would be made?
It's fully expected that Tuesday's match will also spill into ESPNews territory as well, but at least they should be able to air the conclusion live since it will be weekday with no major sports events scheduled for the daytime.
Does Fritz learn from today's defeat... or could Kasparov repeat today's win simply by repeating today's move sequence on Tuesday?
Go to page 10, you get links 1-19. Page 19 brings pages 9-28. etc...
Go to page 99... you will hit the wall.
That's a double-jump because there's actual copyrighted material being protected by CSS...
What we've gotten out of this ruling is that a garage door opening signal code isn't art, and therefore can't enjoy a copyright. Therefore, it doesn't look good for a chip that emits a signal that communicates a message that equates to nothing more than "I'm made by Lexmark."
At this point, the disputed info isn't a price. The prices of the items today or in the past are what can't be copyrighted, but this information is a price from the future that hasn't been released yet. You don't need to sign an NDA to walk into a store, but you do have to if you have the Black Friday prices this early. Clearly, somebody leaked. Therefore, the stores should have the right to contain the breach by not allowing that info to be republished any further.
The connection is this. The "doorbuster" specials you see on the morning of Black Friday are loss leader selections designed to get you in their store first that day, in the hope that you'll make other purchases where all things are equal between all stores with them since you're already there.
If other stores get wind of the loss leader selections with time to react, and duplicate them, suddenly all of the punch of the loss leader is lost. If everybody knew everybody's loss leaders ahead, there'd be no point in having them so they'd go away and return back to regular market pricing.
Remember, the definition of a loss leader is a product that the store is intentionally losing money on as one of the ultimate motivators to get people to come to the store. This is one of the few times in your life you'll ever be able to buy at retail something for less than it costs at wholesale. Be nice to the stores when they're doing this... having laws protect the secrecy around Black Friday is needed if you want to have another one next year.