99.84% accuracy rate means misclassifying 1 email in every 625 you receive. Are you really that accurate that you don't make a single mistake in almost a thousand emails? Here, "mistake" can mean reading an email you thought was valid but it turned out to be spam; or deleting an email you thought was spam but it really was valid.
The intent here IS to initialize regulation of VoIP in that any company offering gateway services between the 'Net and the telephone network is affected by this.
That was the point I thought I had made, but perhaps it wasn't clear.
Another poster alluded to this, but do you also think individuals should be able to subscribe for police and fire protection? If you are being held hostage, the police look up your details in their database, see that you aren't a subscriber, and refuse to help out? Your house is burning down and you and your family are trapped inside, but the fire department drives past your house because you didn't sign up for service?
I'm all for less government control and red tape, but emergency services is one of those areas which I don't mind having it mandated.
I don't think the intent here is to regular any VOIP service, such as Skype, iChat, etc. Computer-to-computer service *shouldn't* see any regulation at all, though I'm sure the telcos are pushing to regulate it to stifle competition. However, as soon as you tie that service to a telephone number (Vonage, et al) it's fair game for certain regulatory controls.
Dialing 911 is the easy part. Quoted from the link you posted:
"You Must Pre-designate the Physical Location of Your Vonage Line for 911 Dialing to Function.
Remember that unlike traditional phone lines, Vonage service is portable to any location with broadband Internet access. For example, you can have a New York number and receive calls in Texas. You can also take your equipment with you on a trip but, when you travel, 911 Dialing will automatically route your call to the local emergency personnel location for the address on file, not your temporary location."
Any service can do this... type in your location info on a website, the VOIP provider stores it in a database, then when you call 911, that location is passed along. But there's no guarantees that when you have a heart attack and need help, that the ambulance will show up in Texas rather than your registered New York address.
Don't forget to watch for the pairing of the Moon and Venus tomorrow night at 6:30 - 7:00pm (Eastern Time) in the West sky. They'll only be about three degrees apart in the night sky.
YOu mean they couldn't take it and put it in their closed source products, thereby taking stuff paid for with MY money and not giving me updates and improvements? Sorry if I couldn't give a fuck.
So you're saying that they should be denied the use of something which they paid for with their money as well, simply because they don't share your particular dogma? And if they make any changes by investing more of their money, you are somehow entitled to reap the benefits of THEIR labor? I take it you don't like capitalism much.
Sure they would. The GPL doesn't stop them from using it, only from modifying it- and only then if they distribute, and even then only if they refuse to give their own source. If they don't want to use it, they're being obstinate.
The grandparent post said "because closed source companies wouldn't be able to use it". Could you explain how a closed source company is able to make practical use out of the code in their software products which, to be redundant here, are closed source?
...gives one cause to wonder just what kind of major future potentiality is getting set to emerge as a present reality.
That's the most mystical and long-winded way I've heard of saying "... gives one cause to wonder what's going to happen." The way they word it, it's as if something in the near future is already there and is just waiting, setting itself up to jump from the future and spontaneously emerge at will in the present.
I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the obfuscation is done in a manner which can be mathematically/logically shown not to alter the program given that certain coding practices are followed (eg: don't write self-modifying code yourself).
This is rather invasive and doesn't bode well for privacy. Not to mention the issues of being able to get the same scan every time (eye damage, anyone?). On the other hand, it does make an attempt to solve the authentication problem -- how do you know that the person holding the passport is the person the password was issued to? Take a sample of data points from the scan at the time of application which are guaranteed to be reproducible (the signature) and sign it against a government-held private key. Barring changes in the eye structure, this should be easily reproducible.
Still, all these methods do nothing to prevent terrorism. They only validate that the person shoving their eye into the reader, terrorist or innocent, matches with the passport. Done properly, it should be incredibly difficult to forge a passport without having someone high up on the inside with access to the private encryption key. But it won't stop terrorists.
Games are not a passive medium, anyway. The player character is the "actor" in a game, and its "star". Shifting that focus to celebrities because they are whiny starry-eyed bitches with no conception of their actual utility in the real world just makes games unappealing.
I wouldn't want to have a celebrity doing the voice for what should be my character. I agree with you -- that would be very annoying. However, it wouldn't be so bad if you had some kind of guide, whose voice was done by a famous actor. For example, if a new Star Wars game came out and you were Luke Skywalker, you could receive tactical hints from Ben Kenobi with the voice supplied by Alec Guinness (okay, he's dead, but you know what I mean).
For games franchised from a movie, I'd prefer to have the voices done by the original actors. For all other games, stick to the noname voice actors who are highly experienced with it anyway.
Lastly, As shown by previous posts, Obfuscation is not the end-all panacea to security. In my opinion, it's barely a detour. Otherwise, Open Source literally could not be secure.
I think you're touching on a different point. Security, as commonly used for Open Source software, can be defined as hardening the code to make it more resistant to elevation of privelege... an Apache hack giving you root access for example. For Closed Source, the obfuscation doesn't even attempt to answer the privelege aspect -- its sole purpose is to make the source code unreadable, regardless of how secure the application is.
Open Source, by definition, does not have its source code secured. Closed Source, by definition, has its source code *more* secured. This just attempts to increase the amount of security by which the source code is hidden.
Once the virus writers get a hold of this viruses will be much harder to catch, unless anti-virus writers start looking more for virus-like activity.
Of course, virus writers have been using this since the early 1990s. One particular virus called Ontario III (there might be others before it) used this trick. An interesting part from the virus writeup: "The Ontario III virus uses a very complex form of encryption with no more than two bytes remaining constant in replicated samples."
Slashdot Mirror
99.84% accuracy rate means misclassifying 1 email in every 625 you receive. Are you really that accurate that you don't make a single mistake in almost a thousand emails? Here, "mistake" can mean reading an email you thought was valid but it turned out to be spam; or deleting an email you thought was spam but it really was valid.
The intent here IS to initialize regulation of VoIP in that any company offering gateway services between the 'Net and the telephone network is affected by this.
That was the point I thought I had made, but perhaps it wasn't clear.
Another poster alluded to this, but do you also think individuals should be able to subscribe for police and fire protection? If you are being held hostage, the police look up your details in their database, see that you aren't a subscriber, and refuse to help out? Your house is burning down and you and your family are trapped inside, but the fire department drives past your house because you didn't sign up for service?
I'm all for less government control and red tape, but emergency services is one of those areas which I don't mind having it mandated.
I don't think the intent here is to regular any VOIP service, such as Skype, iChat, etc. Computer-to-computer service *shouldn't* see any regulation at all, though I'm sure the telcos are pushing to regulate it to stifle competition. However, as soon as you tie that service to a telephone number (Vonage, et al) it's fair game for certain regulatory controls.
No, no... help this one along:
Bratty Spears
Also:
Feewing Wucky?
ph33|1n6 |u(ky?
Eelingfay Uckylay?
Don't forget to watch for the pairing of the Moon and Venus tomorrow night at 6:30 - 7:00pm (Eastern Time) in the West sky. They'll only be about three degrees apart in the night sky.
So I take it you'll be investigating Area 69?
YOu mean they couldn't take it and put it in their closed source products, thereby taking stuff paid for with MY money and not giving me updates and improvements? Sorry if I couldn't give a fuck.
So you're saying that they should be denied the use of something which they paid for with their money as well, simply because they don't share your particular dogma? And if they make any changes by investing more of their money, you are somehow entitled to reap the benefits of THEIR labor? I take it you don't like capitalism much.
Sure they would. The GPL doesn't stop them from using it, only from modifying it- and only then if they distribute, and even then only if they refuse to give their own source. If they don't want to use it, they're being obstinate.
The grandparent post said "because closed source companies wouldn't be able to use it". Could you explain how a closed source company is able to make practical use out of the code in their software products which, to be redundant here, are closed source?
...gives one cause to wonder just what kind of major future potentiality is getting set to emerge as a present reality.
That's the most mystical and long-winded way I've heard of saying "... gives one cause to wonder what's going to happen." The way they word it, it's as if something in the near future is already there and is just waiting, setting itself up to jump from the future and spontaneously emerge at will in the present.
The intro quotes this as happening in Seattle 3 years ago...can anyone provide evidence?
I think this is the event they were referring to.
Somebody must be on to me... they've published a list of the 50 servers I've got r00t on! ;-)
I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the obfuscation is done in a manner which can be mathematically/logically shown not to alter the program given that certain coding practices are followed (eg: don't write self-modifying code yourself).
But maybe that's a pipe dream.
This is rather invasive and doesn't bode well for privacy. Not to mention the issues of being able to get the same scan every time (eye damage, anyone?). On the other hand, it does make an attempt to solve the authentication problem -- how do you know that the person holding the passport is the person the password was issued to? Take a sample of data points from the scan at the time of application which are guaranteed to be reproducible (the signature) and sign it against a government-held private key. Barring changes in the eye structure, this should be easily reproducible.
Still, all these methods do nothing to prevent terrorism. They only validate that the person shoving their eye into the reader, terrorist or innocent, matches with the passport. Done properly, it should be incredibly difficult to forge a passport without having someone high up on the inside with access to the private encryption key. But it won't stop terrorists.
Games are not a passive medium, anyway. The player character is the "actor" in a game, and its "star". Shifting that focus to celebrities because they are whiny starry-eyed bitches with no conception of their actual utility in the real world just makes games unappealing.
I wouldn't want to have a celebrity doing the voice for what should be my character. I agree with you -- that would be very annoying. However, it wouldn't be so bad if you had some kind of guide, whose voice was done by a famous actor. For example, if a new Star Wars game came out and you were Luke Skywalker, you could receive tactical hints from Ben Kenobi with the voice supplied by Alec Guinness (okay, he's dead, but you know what I mean).
For games franchised from a movie, I'd prefer to have the voices done by the original actors. For all other games, stick to the noname voice actors who are highly experienced with it anyway.
Lastly, As shown by previous posts, Obfuscation is not the end-all panacea to security. In my opinion, it's barely a detour. Otherwise, Open Source literally could not be secure.
I think you're touching on a different point. Security, as commonly used for Open Source software, can be defined as hardening the code to make it more resistant to elevation of privelege... an Apache hack giving you root access for example. For Closed Source, the obfuscation doesn't even attempt to answer the privelege aspect -- its sole purpose is to make the source code unreadable, regardless of how secure the application is.
Open Source, by definition, does not have its source code secured. Closed Source, by definition, has its source code *more* secured. This just attempts to increase the amount of security by which the source code is hidden.
Self-modifying code will be much more reliable, and easier to debug!
Have you considered the possibility that debugging is done in the original source code and only obfuscated before it ships?
Here's an idea -- why doesn't the EFF or FSF patent security through obscurity, thus forcing all software vendors to implement REAL security?
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you *do* consider to be real security for a software program.
Once the virus writers get a hold of this viruses will be much harder to catch, unless anti-virus writers start looking more for virus-like activity.
Of course, virus writers have been using this since the early 1990s. One particular virus called Ontario III (there might be others before it) used this trick. An interesting part from the virus writeup: "The Ontario III virus uses a very complex form of encryption with no more than two bytes remaining constant in replicated samples."
The Supreme Court is a court of limited appelate jurisdiction...
If you keep on talking about this juris-my-diction crap, you can cram it up your ass.
Hiibel's wife isn't going to help either, she went off in the video, like a screeching hag.
You mean he married his daughter??
Obviously Manix.
;-)
I think you misspelled Manics.
And somewhere else out there the real Jenny, who gets calls every 15 seconds to her phone line, is mounting a harassment suit.
Uh, don't you mean trademark?