Oh...as for the use of this patent, perhaps they don't intend to do anything with it. If I was in charge of a huge company, I would try to patent everything I could. The cost is relatively low, and the defensive benefits are high. It prevents someone else from coming along and suing you.
Just because you patent something, doesn't mean you have to go around suing everybody.
It's up to the Patent Office to decide whether or not the patent is worthy. I don't fault Microsoft for applying for the patent, I would fault the Patent Office for granting it though, because I do think it's a dumb thing to patent.
Base 30 would be 10 digits + 26 letters - 6 confusing letters which can be easily confused as other letters and/or numbers...say OZSIQV.
These URLs would be pretty easy to both read and say.
Using base 60 or 90 would include having lowercase letters and punctuation marks.
Punctionation marks are a pain to say and can be confusing. Having lowercase letters means you have to differentiate between upper and lower when you say and use the URL. In addition, it's pretty well known that IIS (and windows in general) is case insensitive when it comes to filenames...so if they were to create a list of files while utilizing this scheme, using a single case for unique representation becomes important.
I see no reason why 60 or 90 would be more obvious and thus less patentable. The idea of creating a shorter number string using a higher base is obvious regardless of which base is used.
This doesn't mean I agree with patenting the base 30 conversion either. I can, however, understand why they went with it.
Why on earth doesn't Slashdot set up a mirror first then link to that instead of bringing down people's websites? Bit/BlogTorrent are free last I checked. Linking to a 2.5MB file?! It's almost like they want the site to go offline.
There was a guy with Tsunami Videos on his blog which ended up costing him $1,000 before he knew what hit him. Does Slashdot compensate those with huge bandwidth bills?
Boy that would be wonderful...pay people everytime you link to them. That would make the WWW great! I've got an idea...go with an ISP that allows you to set an upper limit on the amount of bandwidth you're willing to pay for a month.
or give any warning prior to linking to something like a pdf?
People put things online presumably because they want others to see them. If that's not the case, take measures to prevent it by password protecting the material or firewalling.
The ability to freely link to other sites is what makes the WWW work. Deal with it.
Well...switching people over to linux is definitely one of my goals.
The reason why? Linux is much easier to keep secure, and much easier to roll out without having to pay a lot of money to do it. Also, it tends to crash a lot less and runs a lot better on older hardware.
I agree the underlying OS should be irrelevant as it applies to the user experience. The admin experience, however, changes dramatically.
That's why I'm encouraging people to use Open Office, Firefox, and Thunderbird. If I can get enough people using them, switching those people over to linux would be fairly trivial. The cost savings for hardware and software would not be trivial (at least for us). In addition people wouldn't have to worry about the latest viruses, worms, etc.
As far as people's resumes go, if you are hiring admins I don't think you'll ever see listed experience with different OS's going away. For users, yes. Most resumes I see look that way anyway...future users tend to list the apps they know. Windows, when mentioned, is usually buried in that list somewhere...treated more like an app than an OS.
If everyone had food, clothing, and shelter provided for them; what incentive would people have to work?
Sure some would work because they enjoy it, but who would do the jobs that need to be done that no one wants to do? Which would you rather do? Sit on the beach all day or scrub toilets?
Not every job can be one where one designs video games, is a movie star, etc...without crap jobs getting done we wouldn't have the resources to provide everyone with the above.
A froogle search for color laser printer pulls up hits under $500. That's roughly a two days wages for me, certainly not freakin' expensive by my definition.
I imagine most people could afford one if they really wanted it. A few months of saving up (hell if you're a smoker, quitting would get you the cash pretty quick), or a simple credit card purchase with making the minimum payments would easily do it for most I think.
Um...I don't see any copies of Halo 2 on ebay going for $265. I see copies of Halo 2 bundled with special edition xboxes going for that, and ridiculous "buy it now" prices of $150, but no $265 prices for just the game.
I'm not sure why this modded insightful. The point is that with this method you can crack all passwords containing just letters instantly. The obvious extension of this is building hash tables that will allow you to crack all passwords instantly. The space to contain those hash tables is not quite within reach of the average cracker yet...but it most certainly will be sooner or later.
If you want a program that figures out which strings are likely to be passwords, use l0phtcrack which incorporates a dictionary attack. I believe it will also do hybrid dictionary attacks which appends and prepends various characters to the words. I'm not sure if it does substitutions or not...other programs do however.
The success rate for these attacks is high, but not 100% and not virtually instantaneous.
This is somehow news? Companies do this all the time. For example, many go with closed source software instead of open source software so they have someone to blame/sue when something goes wrong.
In this case the company is paying someone to take the fall when they have a security problem. If this person doesn't realize it, then they are clueless.
Quite a few people in this position are probably content with it because they get paid to do nothing. The trade off for that is crappy job security.
Those that aren't content with it (as the article illustrates) quit.
Sorry but you are wrong there. Nothing is factored into the price that way. The price is the exact amount that their market research reported the kids will be able to squeeze out of their parents. Or, more bluntly, it is the amount that they conditioned the target audience to pay for the nike-image
Compare that to the retail-price (and add another $10 for package/shipping/whatever if you like).
This is only part of the story. Nike figures out how much people are willing to pay, then they figure out how much the shoes cost to produce, and they price accordingly.
For example a shoe might cost: $5 to produce + $5 to ship + whatever else (i.e. $x for the warranty, marketing, employee costs, etc) + X% markup at the shoe store.
So...for a shoe that Nike determines people will pay $100 for:
Nike sells the shoe to the shoe store for $80 and assumes/tells the store to sell for $100. From that $80, Nike knows that say...$40 is spent on costs for the shoe (including the warranty) and that $40 is profit.
That's what I mean by it's factored into the price of the shoe. Nike knows reasonably well the costs associated with shoe, warranty abusers and all. Nike is ok with that because they expect to make $40 on the shoe.
If they make $30 and determine it's because the warranty costs them an extra $10 over what they thought it would, Nike is likely to do away with the shoe, raise the price of their shoes,do away with the warranty, or reduce some cost associated with the shoe that's flexible...say layoff an employee.
It does make things worse. In order to take advantage of Nike, someone has to buy the shoes (most likely the poor people) and someone in a third world country is exploited when every shoe is made.
It doesn't really dig into Nike's profit because the cost of the warranty is factored into the price of the shoe. They count on some people doing this, and they charge accordingly. If enough people do it, Nike will just stop providing the warranty. Who wins then?
All doing this does, really, is raises the price of shoes for everyone else and forces people in the third world to produce more shoes.
If you don't approve of Nike's business practices, don't you think it would be better to not purchase the shoes at all? Apparently you don't, because you're justifying an immoral act by citing another that you really don't give a crap about in order to get something for nothing.
I'm sure the children in third world countries will appreciate your concern as they make the new shoes you'll be receiving by cashing in on the warranty.
So basically you blame IT, Microsoft, STATA, and Arnold instead of having the researchers take any of them blame themselves for being unable to generate usable random IDs. Why didn't they just generate their own random 9 digit identifier and delete the SSNs?
Why didn't they make sure the box was secure by never putting it on the Internet?
Granted yes, Microsoft software has vulnerabilities, STATA may suck, IT support may be stupid, and the state may have been negligent in distributing sensative data this way, but don't you think the researchers have some responsibility for this as well?
The researchers knew it wasn't good to have SSNs in the data and (according to you) had strict rules about network access because it wasn't a Berkeley box. Yet, they put the box on the Internet anyway with unobfuscated SSNs.
Don't you think those actions on the part of the researchers require them the share in the responsibility?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh...as for the use of this patent, perhaps they don't intend to do anything with it. If I was in charge of a huge company, I would try to patent everything I could. The cost is relatively low, and the defensive benefits are high. It prevents someone else from coming along and suing you.
Just because you patent something, doesn't mean you have to go around suing everybody.
It's up to the Patent Office to decide whether or not the patent is worthy. I don't fault Microsoft for applying for the patent, I would fault the Patent Office for granting it though, because I do think it's a dumb thing to patent.
How about another non-technical explaination.
Base 30 would be 10 digits + 26 letters - 6 confusing letters which can be easily confused as other letters and/or numbers...say OZSIQV.
These URLs would be pretty easy to both read and say.
Using base 60 or 90 would include having lowercase letters and punctuation marks.
Punctionation marks are a pain to say and can be confusing. Having lowercase letters means you have to differentiate between upper and lower when you say and use the URL. In addition, it's pretty well known that IIS (and windows in general) is case insensitive when it comes to filenames...so if they were to create a list of files while utilizing this scheme, using a single case for unique representation becomes important.
I see no reason why 60 or 90 would be more obvious and thus less patentable. The idea of creating a shorter number string using a higher base is obvious regardless of which base is used.
This doesn't mean I agree with patenting the base 30 conversion either. I can, however, understand why they went with it.
He didn't commit a crime. Someone else admitted to it.
There certainly could be a drop or two there.
It would be to whoever was certain he would win.
Right...because rain on your wedding day is ironic
That is, it's contrary to what was expected or intended...well unless you planned for it to rain on your wedding day.
The implication in the song is that they didn't.
I'm not sure why anyone rated this as insightful.
Why on earth doesn't Slashdot set up a mirror first then link to that instead of bringing down people's websites? Bit/BlogTorrent are free last I checked. Linking to a 2.5MB file?! It's almost like they want the site to go offline.
The FAQ says why they don't this.
There was a guy with Tsunami Videos on his blog which ended up costing him $1,000 before he knew what hit him. Does Slashdot compensate those with huge bandwidth bills?
Boy that would be wonderful...pay people everytime you link to them. That would make the WWW great! I've got an idea...go with an ISP that allows you to set an upper limit on the amount of bandwidth you're willing to pay for a month.
or give any warning prior to linking to something like a pdf?
People put things online presumably because they want others to see them. If that's not the case, take measures to prevent it by password protecting the material or firewalling.
The ability to freely link to other sites is what makes the WWW work. Deal with it.
I dont know who the hell this show even appeals to.
You appear to have watched it last year, thought it sucked, and then watched it again this year.
If I had to make a guess, I'd say the show appeals to you. If it didn't you wouldn't watch it, right?
That fact (which I'm well aware of) doesn't make my statement a myth. Just because I switch people over doesn't mean 90% of the user base will.
The comment still stands, and is likely to be true for quite a while.
Well...switching people over to linux is definitely one of my goals.
The reason why? Linux is much easier to keep secure, and much easier to roll out without having to pay a lot of money to do it. Also, it tends to crash a lot less and runs a lot better on older hardware.
I agree the underlying OS should be irrelevant as it applies to the user experience. The admin experience, however, changes dramatically.
That's why I'm encouraging people to use Open Office, Firefox, and Thunderbird. If I can get enough people using them, switching those people over to linux would be fairly trivial. The cost savings for hardware and software would not be trivial (at least for us). In addition people wouldn't have to worry about the latest viruses, worms, etc.
As far as people's resumes go, if you are hiring admins I don't think you'll ever see listed experience with different OS's going away. For users, yes. Most resumes I see look that way anyway...future users tend to list the apps they know. Windows, when mentioned, is usually buried in that list somewhere...treated more like an app than an OS.
You forgot to check:
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
How liberal could it be? It voted for bush.
In fact, I see a lot more red there than the rest of the state.
Arkansas Election Map by County
Maybe you meant East Arkansas?
If everyone had food, clothing, and shelter provided for them; what incentive would people have to work?
Sure some would work because they enjoy it, but who would do the jobs that need to be done that no one wants to do? Which would you rather do? Sit on the beach all day or scrub toilets?
Not every job can be one where one designs video games, is a movie star, etc...without crap jobs getting done we wouldn't have the resources to provide everyone with the above.
Depends on your definition of freakin' expensive.
A froogle search for color laser printer pulls up hits under $500. That's roughly a two days wages for me, certainly not freakin' expensive by my definition.
I imagine most people could afford one if they really wanted it. A few months of saving up (hell if you're a smoker, quitting would get you the cash pretty quick), or a simple credit card purchase with making the minimum payments would easily do it for most I think.
Could be because they make a fortune off of selling new cartridges.
Yep. That's because spikes in oil prices slow the economy. Great for oil companies...sucks for everyone else.
Ah ha...right you are sir. Didn't see that one in completed auctions.
Um...I don't see any copies of Halo 2 on ebay going for $265. I see copies of Halo 2 bundled with special edition xboxes going for that, and ridiculous "buy it now" prices of $150, but no $265 prices for just the game.
Did I see Hitler...Ding! Godwin's law says you lose. Sorry, try again in 4 years.
I'm not sure why this modded insightful. The point is that with this method you can crack all passwords containing just letters instantly. The obvious extension of this is building hash tables that will allow you to crack all passwords instantly. The space to contain those hash tables is not quite within reach of the average cracker yet...but it most certainly will be sooner or later.
If you want a program that figures out which strings are likely to be passwords, use l0phtcrack which incorporates a dictionary attack. I believe it will also do hybrid dictionary attacks which appends and prepends various characters to the words. I'm not sure if it does substitutions or not...other programs do however.
The success rate for these attacks is high, but not 100% and not virtually instantaneous.
This is somehow news? Companies do this all the time. For example, many go with closed source software instead of open source software so they have someone to blame/sue when something goes wrong.
In this case the company is paying someone to take the fall when they have a security problem. If this person doesn't realize it, then they are clueless.
Quite a few people in this position are probably content with it because they get paid to do nothing. The trade off for that is crappy job security.
Those that aren't content with it (as the article illustrates) quit.
Sorry but you are wrong there. Nothing is factored into the price that way. The price is the exact amount that their market research reported the kids will be able to squeeze out of their parents. Or, more bluntly, it is the amount that they conditioned the target audience to pay for the nike-image
Compare that to the retail-price (and add another $10 for package/shipping/whatever if you like).
This is only part of the story. Nike figures out how much people are willing to pay, then they figure out how much the shoes cost to produce, and they price accordingly.
For example a shoe might cost: $5 to produce + $5 to ship + whatever else (i.e. $x for the warranty, marketing, employee costs, etc) + X% markup at the shoe store.
So...for a shoe that Nike determines people will pay $100 for:
Nike sells the shoe to the shoe store for $80 and assumes/tells the store to sell for $100. From that $80, Nike knows that say...$40 is spent on costs for the shoe (including the warranty) and that $40 is profit.
That's what I mean by it's factored into the price of the shoe. Nike knows reasonably well the costs associated with shoe, warranty abusers and all. Nike is ok with that because they expect to make $40 on the shoe.
If they make $30 and determine it's because the warranty costs them an extra $10 over what they thought it would, Nike is likely to do away with the shoe, raise the price of their shoes,do away with the warranty, or reduce some cost associated with the shoe that's flexible...say layoff an employee.
It does make things worse. In order to take advantage of Nike, someone has to buy the shoes (most likely the poor people) and someone in a third world country is exploited when every shoe is made.
It doesn't really dig into Nike's profit because the cost of the warranty is factored into the price of the shoe. They count on some people doing this, and they charge accordingly. If enough people do it, Nike will just stop providing the warranty. Who wins then?
All doing this does, really, is raises the price of shoes for everyone else and forces people in the third world to produce more shoes.
That somehow makes abusing the warranty right?
If you don't approve of Nike's business practices, don't you think it would be better to not purchase the shoes at all? Apparently you don't, because you're justifying an immoral act by citing another that you really don't give a crap about in order to get something for nothing.
I'm sure the children in third world countries will appreciate your concern as they make the new shoes you'll be receiving by cashing in on the warranty.
So basically you blame IT, Microsoft, STATA, and Arnold instead of having the researchers take any of them blame themselves for being unable to generate usable random IDs. Why didn't they just generate their own random 9 digit identifier and delete the SSNs?
Why didn't they make sure the box was secure by never putting it on the Internet?
Granted yes, Microsoft software has vulnerabilities, STATA may suck, IT support may be stupid, and the state may have been negligent in distributing sensative data this way, but don't you think the researchers have some responsibility for this as well?
The researchers knew it wasn't good to have SSNs in the data and (according to you) had strict rules about network access because it wasn't a Berkeley box. Yet, they put the box on the Internet anyway with unobfuscated SSNs.
Don't you think those actions on the part of the researchers require them the share in the responsibility?