Yeah, you know what else are fancy barcodes? Prison numbers. SSNs. etc. Nothing wrong with RFID. It's just a way of identification. What's wrong is what can be done with RFID without the holder's knowledge.
(Most) people don't believe religious prophets anymore. Yahoos must pick other subjects that align themselves more with science. But we can all see the parallels between this and ancient, foolish prophecy.
of course, the image retention time on the eye end the lasting photographic imprint on the memory means that the judgement can happen well after the image is gone.
Commenters on/. have for years been able to judge articles without reading anything more than a marginally accurate 3-sentence summary riddled with typos. Why would scientists think the same would not apply to impressions of websites?
Obviously another waste of government research funds that could be better applied to [insert controversial proposed government project aimed at protecting against terrorism].
By the way, I didn't have a chance to read the article.
This is not at all what I understand. What I understand is that the exploit only works when the length is incorrectly set to 1 (a length of 1 word is impossible for a valid metafile record). This has led Gibson to believe it was an intentional backdoor. I don't know if I will go that far, but is not the pointer to the callback function that is the problem. The data in the metafile record suddenly gets executed if the length is set to 1.
I got almost a third more spam in 05 than 04. I guess I exist outside the bell curve on this one.
Why? Between GMail's filtering and Thunderbird's filtering, I have to deal with maybe 2 spam emails per week. I "get" plenty of spam. But it's DOA... in my spam folder.
If you really think the garbage BB is pumping out there is quality, then add a moderation system to stories. Let Slashdot readers mod stories that you promote to the front page, and the argument is moot. Until then, it's just your opinion, which is strongly objected to by (at least) the more vocal readers.
Unfortunately, when misuse of a technology is difficult or impossible to enforce, often government simply tries to outlaw the technology on the manufacturer level.
It's not an "exploit." Site A includes doubleclick code on their site to show ads. Doubleclick code (a) reads cookie data for Site A's cookies on user's computer (which gets sent because the user is visiting Site A) and passes it via querystring or other method to doubleclick, and (b) registers a visit on Site A to doubleclick's database for the user identified by doubleclick's own cookie (which gets sent because the browser requests an ad on the doubleclick domain).
No, like I said in my comment, it's not "one use", it's the use 99% of the time. The whole point of cookies is to supplement stateless http with stateful information. Whether that statful information is a number identifying further state info in a database or whether it is the stateful info itself doesn't matter.
I mentioned this in the first place because of your apparent misunderstanding of unique identification of cookies, here:
The completely stuffed thing about the paranoia regarding cookies is that any information that the browser could determine about you (IP, the port you are using, the page you last visited in order to get the the current page) could simply be written to the servers database - irrespective of whether or not you have cookies enabled.
The things you list can of course be written to the server's db (and are automagically written to server logs anyway, most of the time), but then that's not why people use tracking cookies.
The Unique ID number they are talking about is actually the Session ID allocated by the server that identifies an individual browser session
No, actually, 99% of the time, the cookie is there to allow for unique identification, getting around the fact that http is stateless. This could be storing a username or a user id or something else. Session IDs are also often stored in cookies, but that really is not what they're talking about here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you know what else are fancy barcodes? Prison numbers. SSNs. etc. Nothing wrong with RFID. It's just a way of identification. What's wrong is what can be done with RFID without the holder's knowledge.
(Most) people don't believe religious prophets anymore. Yahoos must pick other subjects that align themselves more with science. But we can all see the parallels between this and ancient, foolish prophecy.
Look, you're either part of the problem or you are part of the solution. Become a pirate or shut up about it already.
Yeah, it's also a holiday in the US.
of course, the image retention time on the eye end the lasting photographic imprint on the memory means that the judgement can happen well after the image is gone.
And most absolutely does! Nice catch.
Commenters on /. have for years been able to judge articles without reading anything more than a marginally accurate 3-sentence summary riddled with typos. Why would scientists think the same would not apply to impressions of websites?
Obviously another waste of government research funds that could be better applied to [insert controversial proposed government project aimed at protecting against terrorism].
By the way, I didn't have a chance to read the article.
This is not at all what I understand. What I understand is that the exploit only works when the length is incorrectly set to 1 (a length of 1 word is impossible for a valid metafile record). This has led Gibson to believe it was an intentional backdoor. I don't know if I will go that far, but is not the pointer to the callback function that is the problem. The data in the metafile record suddenly gets executed if the length is set to 1.
And, as a female 35-yeard old teenage male, I'd have to agree.
The computer is in both working and not working states simultaneously until one measures the the state with Task Manager. Thus, Windows is flawless.
Sounds like someone needed a 'Mission Accomplished' banner.
I got almost a third more spam in 05 than 04. I guess I exist outside the bell curve on this one.
Why? Between GMail's filtering and Thunderbird's filtering, I have to deal with maybe 2 spam emails per week. I "get" plenty of spam. But it's DOA... in my spam folder.
Yeah, I can say it on my PODCAST! wo0t!
If you really think the garbage BB is pumping out there is quality, then add a moderation system to stories. Let Slashdot readers mod stories that you promote to the front page, and the argument is moot. Until then, it's just your opinion, which is strongly objected to by (at least) the more vocal readers.
Highly doubtful. Google will hire the person who cracks the DRM and harvest ideas from their brain for the next version.
I'd say two days max. There will be too many crackers thinking they'll get a Google job out of it.
Unfortunately, when misuse of a technology is difficult or impossible to enforce, often government simply tries to outlaw the technology on the manufacturer level.
Looks like they forgot to adjust their USE flags.
Oh don't you worry. The lawmakers would come up with something.
It's not an "exploit." Site A includes doubleclick code on their site to show ads. Doubleclick code (a) reads cookie data for Site A's cookies on user's computer (which gets sent because the user is visiting Site A) and passes it via querystring or other method to doubleclick, and (b) registers a visit on Site A to doubleclick's database for the user identified by doubleclick's own cookie (which gets sent because the browser requests an ad on the doubleclick domain).
Get it now?
Um, no. His point is that it gets around the domain restriction of cookies. This is exactly what ad services use cookies for.
No, like I said in my comment, it's not "one use", it's the use 99% of the time. The whole point of cookies is to supplement stateless http with stateful information. Whether that statful information is a number identifying further state info in a database or whether it is the stateful info itself doesn't matter.
I mentioned this in the first place because of your apparent misunderstanding of unique identification of cookies, here:
The things you list can of course be written to the server's db (and are automagically written to server logs anyway, most of the time), but then that's not why people use tracking cookies.
The Unique ID number they are talking about is actually the Session ID allocated by the server that identifies an individual browser session
No, actually, 99% of the time, the cookie is there to allow for unique identification, getting around the fact that http is stateless. This could be storing a username or a user id or something else. Session IDs are also often stored in cookies, but that really is not what they're talking about here.
That are large elevation in Entanglement expressions!
Would some kind of binary signing/checksumming help in this regard?
a democrat, or someone who will lose
Typical redundant /. comment.