Ask the question two or three times (pick a dog out of 9 pics, a cat, a horse) and block anyone who got it wrong more than, say, 20 times. ok, lets say three times...
9^3 = 729.
So now a spammer succeeds one in 729 times. If you're blocking after 20 incorrect attempts then each computer on a network of 20,000 zombies gets 20 tries, so a total of 400,000 tries for our spammer, one out of 729 will go through, so your site will still receive almost 550 spams.
You have 9 semi-random pictures. One is a dog. The rest are not. "Pick the dog". Hard to actually solve for a computer program, but a very short keylength. I can have my script guess one of the 9 pics at random and an average of one out of every 9 attempted spams will go through.
That's one *tall* 2 year old ! He's nearly 3 and tall for his age, he could probably reach the element easily. He can definately reach it if he pulls a chair or stool over which he knows how to do.
Use an induction cooker. I have one, and as soon as you've finished cooking the surface is cool enough to touch. It'll hurt, but won't cause serious damage. When we get our own place I'll be looking into that, but for now we have to put up with a very old electric stove.
Man, whatever happened to letting kids get hurt every now and again? Guaranteed he'll never touch a burner with his bare hand again.
I don't mind him getting hurt every once in a while, it teaches him to bounce back, but I'd rather he doesn't have to learn the hard way for everything.
Dimmers don't save you anything. They use just as much electricity, only a part of it is turned to warmth. You are correct that some electricity is wasted in heat from the dimmer switch, however they do increase total resistance of the circuit which lowers the amount of current drawn and thereby decreases the amount of electricity used. It is not a very efficient way to save power, though, you're much better off with an energy saving fluorescent bulb. or are even better off just buying a lower wattage bulb.
I think safety issues are the prime concern, these days. Cooking on an open flame just seems risky. An electric heating element can turn black very quickly after you turn it off but is still hot enough to burn. I would rather be able to see when the element is on than risk my 2yo son burning his hand on one that looks like it's cool but isn't.
What separates it is that an SQL injection attack and spoofing session IDs are attacks designed to take advantage of a security vulnerability. Going up one level in a directory tree by chopping off the last bit of a URL is just finding public content on a webserver that is posted in a place other than the norm, or to put it a bit differently...
Webservers are specifically designed to serve up content that is *anywhere* in thier public webspace as long as there are no access restrictions on the content or directory that the content is in. A web application that suffers from an SQL injection vulnerability is not designed to give admin access to the application because someone knows some magic SQL code to put in a form field, that is a side effect of bad coding and not a designed function of the application.
This is content placed in a location which is public by design (a public web site on the internet).
A better analogy would be to put an embarrasing photograph of yourself up on a billboard that has it's view blocked by a building then claiming that anyone who tries to see the billboard by looking up from the other side of the building is trespassing on your private property to gain unauthorised access to your private photographs.
I think Apple would tell you to either wait indefinately or get a MacBook Pro. I would say do what you want when you want, but don't expect Apple to ever support running OS-X on a generic PC. In fact they will actively try to prevent you from doing that like they are currently trying to do with thier use of TPM to prevent booting the OS on other than apple hardware.
My understanding is that one of the reasons Apple switched to Intel in the first place is due to the availability of a low power laptop/notebook CPU. I wouldn't be surprised if a tablet PC is in the works at Apple now. As you said you would like to replace your ibook with another Mac, so from Apple's standpoint they can either sell you an operating system now, or maybe a year down the line when they release a tablet they can sell you an operating system *and* a computer. I think they'll pick option 'B' any day.
Here's the first part of the report from Black Box Voting. Note that there are several problems that turn up in the inspection of the machines, not just the memory discrepancies.
For those people who are saying that what Bruce Funk and Black Box Voting did violated the agreements with Diebold, however from a different article on the Black Box Voting website:
Bruce Funk, the elected official who has run elections in Emery County for 23 years, noticed a critical shortage in flash memory/storage in seven of his 40 brand new Diebold machines. He arranged for an independent evaluation, a right granted to Utah county officials in the Diebold contract [empasis mine].
I've also heard people say that Black Box Voting should have made a better record of thier activities, ie videotaping the whole thing, to those people, please note this paragraph from yet another article:
The testing was performed for an elections official who noticed anomalies in the county voting machines. It was underwritten, videotaped [emphasis mine] and photographed by Black Box Voting and performed by Harri Hursti and Security Innovation, Inc.
IIRC, Google's PageRank also takes into account how many users click a link in search results, and it refines them based on that.
That's impossibe, Google links directly to the search results pages so there's no way for them to track them. The only exception is their pay-per-click adwords. Of course this could change with FireFox's new ping feature.
AFAICT, they've GOT a Bayesian filter running on search results for logged in users. If I search for an "interesting" search term, it'll give me sites that are somewhat more relevant to what I click. Either that, or the Bayesian will go overboard, and give me stuff that I wrote:P
If this were the case then if two people ran the same search they would get different search results. I've had freinds run the same search as me in the past and we always get the same results.
AFAICT Google's results are based on (1) presence of keywords in the domain name and link itself, (2) presence of keywords on the targeted pages as they appear in Google's cached copy of the page and (3) links to that page from other sites (found by crawling the other sites).
Ok, First off I'll visit John McCain's website and let's see what cookies I get...
dum de dum dum...
looking for cookies from mccain.senate.gov... hrmmm, none, not even a session cookie. ...looking for cookies from senate.gov domain (just in case they're being stored as wildcard cookies)... nope none.
okay, now let's hop on over to the referenced article slamming John McCain's website for setting a cookie on CNET...
Hrmmm....
Cookies for news.com.com...
Ok there's (counts) 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7... 7 cookies for news.com.com. Let's have a look at them...
ok, two of them are session cookies, "team" and "isFlash7". Not sure what team is for, but isflash7 appears to be an indicator that i have flash 7 on my system (I wonder if I explicitly set that to 0 if CNET would stop serving me flash ads? Anyways, no need since I use Adblock).
There are three cookies that are numbers followed by _uu. They appear to be set for a duration of one year and appear to track which articles I've viewed on CNET. These are the *gasp, shock horror* "tracking cookies" (queue "dun dun duhhhhh" dark sounding music).
The other two cookies appear to be set for one month and are "whatshot" and "contextPane". They appear to be some sort of preference settings, but I don't ever recall telling them I want to see a graphical "what's hot" button or a large "Content Pane" right in the middle of the article I'm trying to read. I wonder if tweakign with these cookies might get rid of those?
To me this article stinks of the pot calling the kettle black, only there is no kettle. Either McCain's webmasters fixed the site to stop sending this cookie as soon as the article broke, or Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache (the writers of the CNET article) visited a page on his site that I didn't, or they're outright lieing. At any rate, they really should've checked thier own site before going on this rampage against McCain.
Why he gives his full credentials in his article! He even used up the first half of his article by showing the feedback from his only^h^h^h^hgreatest fan... dear old mom! Well if you can't believe a guy's mom who can you believe?
...and what astounding modesty! Let dear ol' mom tell everyone how you got published in the New York Times so that you can stand back and say, "aw shucks mom, it wasn't really *that* big of a deal".
...I mean, a guy like that has to be a first rate, knowledgable journalist, if you've got any doubts, just ask his mom, she'll clear them right up!
I actually like that little bit of delay. If you turn the light on in a dark room it gives your eyes time to adjust before hitting you with full brightness as opposed to having to squint until your eyes adjust.
Slashdot Mirror
9^3 = 729.
So now a spammer succeeds one in 729 times. If you're blocking after 20 incorrect attempts then each computer on a network of 20,000 zombies gets 20 tries, so a total of 400,000 tries for our spammer, one out of 729 will go through, so your site will still receive almost 550 spams.
Hard to actually solve for a computer program, but a very short keylength. I can have my script guess one of the 9 pics at random and an average of one out of every 9 attempted spams will go through.
Man, whatever happened to letting kids get hurt every now and again? Guaranteed he'll never touch a burner with his bare hand again.
I don't mind him getting hurt every once in a while, it teaches him to bounce back, but I'd rather he doesn't have to learn the hard way for everything.ok, so Howard Stern is syndicated across what, 50-odd radio stations? What's the bet that at least 10 of them stream to the internet?
Do you have a reference for the house legalizing torture?
What separates it is that an SQL injection attack and spoofing session IDs are attacks designed to take advantage of a security vulnerability. Going up one level in a directory tree by chopping off the last bit of a URL is just finding public content on a webserver that is posted in a place other than the norm, or to put it a bit differently...
Webservers are specifically designed to serve up content that is *anywhere* in thier public webspace as long as there are no access restrictions on the content or directory that the content is in. A web application that suffers from an SQL injection vulnerability is not designed to give admin access to the application because someone knows some magic SQL code to put in a form field, that is a side effect of bad coding and not a designed function of the application.
This is content placed in a location which is public by design (a public web site on the internet).
A better analogy would be to put an embarrasing photograph of yourself up on a billboard that has it's view blocked by a building then claiming that anyone who tries to see the billboard by looking up from the other side of the building is trespassing on your private property to gain unauthorised access to your private photographs.
The article now simply says 120 megawatts. It appears to have been corrected.
Wow, you have quite an imagination.
You forgot knoppix ... for disaster recovery.
I think Apple would tell you to either wait indefinately or get a MacBook Pro. I would say do what you want when you want, but don't expect Apple to ever support running OS-X on a generic PC. In fact they will actively try to prevent you from doing that like they are currently trying to do with thier use of TPM to prevent booting the OS on other than apple hardware.
My understanding is that one of the reasons Apple switched to Intel in the first place is due to the availability of a low power laptop/notebook CPU. I wouldn't be surprised if a tablet PC is in the works at Apple now. As you said you would like to replace your ibook with another Mac, so from Apple's standpoint they can either sell you an operating system now, or maybe a year down the line when they release a tablet they can sell you an operating system *and* a computer. I think they'll pick option 'B' any day.
Here's the first part of the report from Black Box Voting. Note that there are several problems that turn up in the inspection of the machines, not just the memory discrepancies.
For those people who are saying that what Bruce Funk and Black Box Voting did violated the agreements with Diebold, however from a different article on the Black Box Voting website:
I've also heard people say that Black Box Voting should have made a better record of thier activities, ie videotaping the whole thing, to those people, please note this paragraph from yet another article:
The Whitehouse
That's impossibe, Google links directly to the search results pages so there's no way for them to track them. The only exception is their pay-per-click adwords. Of course this could change with FireFox's new ping feature.
If this were the case then if two people ran the same search they would get different search results. I've had freinds run the same search as me in the past and we always get the same results.
AFAICT Google's results are based on (1) presence of keywords in the domain name and link itself, (2) presence of keywords on the targeted pages as they appear in Google's cached copy of the page and (3) links to that page from other sites (found by crawling the other sites).
HTML version of report
Ok, First off I'll visit John McCain's website and let's see what cookies I get... ... hrmmm, none, not even a session cookie.
...looking for cookies from senate.gov domain (just in case they're being stored as wildcard cookies) ... nope none.
dum de dum dum...
looking for cookies from mccain.senate.gov
okay, now let's hop on over to the referenced article slamming John McCain's website for setting a cookie on CNET ... .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6 .. 7 ... 7 cookies for news.com.com. Let's have a look at them...
Hrmmm....
Cookies for news.com.com...
Ok there's (counts) 1
ok, two of them are session cookies, "team" and "isFlash7". Not sure what team is for, but isflash7 appears to be an indicator that i have flash 7 on my system (I wonder if I explicitly set that to 0 if CNET would stop serving me flash ads? Anyways, no need since I use Adblock).
There are three cookies that are numbers followed by _uu. They appear to be set for a duration of one year and appear to track which articles I've viewed on CNET. These are the *gasp, shock horror* "tracking cookies" (queue "dun dun duhhhhh" dark sounding music).
The other two cookies appear to be set for one month and are "whatshot" and "contextPane". They appear to be some sort of preference settings, but I don't ever recall telling them I want to see a graphical "what's hot" button or a large "Content Pane" right in the middle of the article I'm trying to read. I wonder if tweakign with these cookies might get rid of those?
To me this article stinks of the pot calling the kettle black, only there is no kettle. Either McCain's webmasters fixed the site to stop sending this cookie as soon as the article broke, or Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache (the writers of the CNET article) visited a page on his site that I didn't, or they're outright lieing. At any rate, they really should've checked thier own site before going on this rampage against McCain.
Yep and chimpanzees will become vice president.
You mean like this?
Why he gives his full credentials in his article! He even used up the first half of his article by showing the feedback from his only^h^h^h^hgreatest fan ... dear old mom! Well if you can't believe a guy's mom who can you believe?
...and what astounding modesty! Let dear ol' mom tell everyone how you got published in the New York Times so that you can stand back and say, "aw shucks mom, it wasn't really *that* big of a deal".
...I mean, a guy like that has to be a first rate, knowledgable journalist, if you've got any doubts, just ask his mom, she'll clear them right up!
I actually like that little bit of delay. If you turn the light on in a dark room it gives your eyes time to adjust before hitting you with full brightness as opposed to having to squint until your eyes adjust.