I've long since gone the opposite route, my server rejects all requests unless/etc/hosts.allow has already whitelisted them. Granted, it's a home server and I'm the only one who ever uses SSH on it. (Hotel wifi is temp-whitelisted on the fly by remote-connecting to a whitelisted work client.)
Then we could turn our attention to Bayesian filtering, another technology hyped as The Answer. Never mind that it was obvious on inspection that spammers could defeat it at will -- and that they have, for years. There are STILL people out burning CPU cycles at ever-increasing rates, in a self-defeating exercise in futility, because they haven't realized yet that spammers can run the same algorithms against the same rulesets and pre-vet their spam. And many do.
The spammers can't pre-vet their spam against what is ham for me - only against their best estimate of a typical shlub - so it does some of us some good, at least, especially for work accounts where even the shlubs' ham tends to differ widely.
True, but different situation from what I believe the GP had in mind, which is typically something like
A: Can you build me a screwdriver? (Vague hint about wanting to pound a nail into a board.)
B: Are you wanting to pound a nail into a board? If so, then a hammer's better, I can build you one of those.
Now replace "screwdriver" with "$10,000 high-maintenance program prone to human error" and, well, you get the idea.
Implication by omission. Even having heard something about telomeres a couple of years ago, based on the summary alone, I thought they might have made some new discovery on the subject more recently. You have to get about halfway through TFA before the actual date of the award-winning discovery (late 1984) is specified.
But the rendering is off a bit in the upper right corner. I just tested native Chrome - 3.0.195.21, I haven't updated it in a good while - and it has the same problem.
Oh, great, now I have this mental image of the Goatse troll posts actually being steganography for something else even worse. You owe me a gallon of brain bleach.
Some people have seriously defined "planet" to mean objects that orbit our sun, and of course that definition immediately says that there can't be any more planets in the rest of the universe. If you accept this new object as a "rocky planet", what's your definition? You'll have to word it very carefully so that it includes things orbiting a distant star, but not those that are in orbits around local gas giants.
And if you find a good wording for that, you face another likely future problem: How small an object is allowed as the primary?
As usual, Wikipedia has a summary of the consensus-answers-so-far to these questions:
According to the International Astronomical Union's working definition of "planet," a planet must orbit a star. However, the current IAU definition for planet only accounts for our own solar system and all extrasolar planets were excluded from this definition for now. The "working" definition for extrasolar planets was established in 2001 (and last modified in 2003) with the following criteria:
Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.
Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located.
Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).
There have also been reports of free-floating planetary-mass objects (ones not orbiting any star), sometimes called "rogue planets" or "interstellar planets". Such objects are not discussed in this article since they are outside the working definition of "planet". Some of these may have formed as a planet around a star, but were subsequently ejected from that planetary system.
Specifically, there's a "delete this tweet" option attached to each tweet, and a "delete my account" option under Settings. I haven't tried either one, but surely you can create a second account and do so?
The problem is the data in the buggy case is whatever we give as a third parameter in the fcntl code. Considering that the 8 bytes are controlled by the user it means he can write that amount of information anywhere in the kernel memory!
followed by an example of actually doing it and proving that it worked (not a particularly malicious example, but it seems enough proof of concept to me).
Which would work nicely if TrueCrypt didn't make a point of advertising that it could be used for this sort of thing. All it takes is one person to bother looking that up and then it's "right, what are you really hiding?"
Please note whether you're putting quotes around the phrase!
As of this writing:
Bing without quotes returns the Mac one as the 1st link. Google without quotes returns it 8th (8th is not obviously implausible - it is Yahoo Answers, thus may well have enough incoming links to outweigh the one keyword appearing a bit further away from the others).
With quotes added, both return several links to this story (here and elsewhere), and the Mac one isn't in the top 10 at all.
Evidence? I've never heard of them before (I'm not an e-mail admin of any sort), Google / Google Groups seem to turn up nothing supporting your claim, and whois just turns up a PO box that turns out to belong to an ISP (AV8 Internet Services) which may just happen to have the guy as a customer. So you could be lying, or I could be missing something; both seem plausible to me so far.
I just downloaded one of their other things (swfcatcher.xpi, it's the first one I found a bare URL for) and unzipped it, and the main part (chrome/swfcatcher.jar) is Java, not JS. I assume the one in question here is similar.
However, John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner Inc., questioned whether users would step up to Microsoft's free software. Noting that Windows Live OneCare "hasn't made a dent" in market share, he argued that one reason consumers have steered clear of Microsoft's security software was distrust.
"Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products," he said. "Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water, and the water company said, 'Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.' Would you buy it?"
After Microsoft's announcement last year, John Pescatore, a Gartner analyst, wasn't betting that consumers users would use Morro even if it was free, due to the fact that you would be installing one MS product to fix the security issues in another MS product (the OS). And that also, he indicated, was on reason why OneCare wasn't doing so well, either.
"Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products. Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, 'Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.' Would you buy it?"
Re:Website is to Blog as RSS is to Twitter
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
It's often used that way, but it's not the only useful model; it was first explained to me as multi-cast IM, and that's mostly how I use it (kinda like Facebook minus all the stupid apps).
Slashdot Mirror
I've long since gone the opposite route, my server rejects all requests unless /etc/hosts.allow has already whitelisted them. Granted, it's a home server and I'm the only one who ever uses SSH on it. (Hotel wifi is temp-whitelisted on the fly by remote-connecting to a whitelisted work client.)
Surely I'm not the only one here who twitches whenever they see that phrase?
The spammers can't pre-vet their spam against what is ham for me - only against their best estimate of a typical shlub - so it does some of us some good, at least, especially for work accounts where even the shlubs' ham tends to differ widely.
Now replace "screwdriver" with "$10,000 high-maintenance program prone to human error" and, well, you get the idea.
Works fine for me, even after uninstalling the addon.
Their search page looks more like a search engine. I still don't use it, but clutter isn't the problem.
Mark Shuttleworth announces "Fuck Everything, We're Doing 256 Bits"
Implication by omission. Even having heard something about telomeres a couple of years ago, based on the summary alone, I thought they might have made some new discovery on the subject more recently. You have to get about halfway through TFA before the actual date of the award-winning discovery (late 1984) is specified.
ROCKS FALL! EVERYONE DIES!
But the rendering is off a bit in the upper right corner. I just tested native Chrome - 3.0.195.21, I haven't updated it in a good while - and it has the same problem.
Oh, great, now I have this mental image of the Goatse troll posts actually being steganography for something else even worse. You owe me a gallon of brain bleach.
As usual, Wikipedia has a summary of the consensus-answers-so-far to these questions:
Specifically, there's a "delete this tweet" option attached to each tweet, and a "delete my account" option under Settings. I haven't tried either one, but surely you can create a second account and do so?
Not if Google's patent includes "not crowding the search form with noisy images".
followed by an example of actually doing it and proving that it worked (not a particularly malicious example, but it seems enough proof of concept to me).
Which would work nicely if TrueCrypt didn't make a point of advertising that it could be used for this sort of thing. All it takes is one person to bother looking that up and then it's "right, what are you really hiding?"
I was pleased once I found how to copy tweets to FB status updates, and deliriously happy once I found how to incorporate FB's chat feature into Pidgin. Everyone else can burn their CPU cycles all they want, so long as I don't have to (a) burn mine or (b) try to fight a metric buttload of network effect.
Please note whether you're putting quotes around the phrase!
As of this writing:
Bing without quotes returns the Mac one as the 1st link. Google without quotes returns it 8th (8th is not obviously implausible - it is Yahoo Answers, thus may well have enough incoming links to outweigh the one keyword appearing a bit further away from the others).
With quotes added, both return several links to this story (here and elsewhere), and the Mac one isn't in the top 10 at all.
Since when did trolls ever stop to worry about that?
Evidence? I've never heard of them before (I'm not an e-mail admin of any sort), Google / Google Groups seem to turn up nothing supporting your claim, and whois just turns up a PO box that turns out to belong to an ISP (AV8 Internet Services) which may just happen to have the guy as a customer. So you could be lying, or I could be missing something; both seem plausible to me so far.
You guess correctly. Anyone want to hunt up the URL for the correct .xpi then?
I just downloaded one of their other things (swfcatcher.xpi, it's the first one I found a bare URL for) and unzipped it, and the main part (chrome/swfcatcher.jar) is Java, not JS. I assume the one in question here is similar.
p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.
This page places it in more coherent context:
It's often used that way, but it's not the only useful model; it was first explained to me as multi-cast IM, and that's mostly how I use it (kinda like Facebook minus all the stupid apps).