I did read the article. In fact I saw it on the BBC before I saw it on slashdot, and would have posted it here myself if someone else hadn't already done so.
There's nothing obvious on Phorm's website about how to opt-out as a website owner.
As I understand it, the ads appear on pages where the site owner has chosen to use phorm for their ads, rather than for example doubleclick or google adwords. But the difference is that phorm will display ads based on the profile it gets from BT, Talk Talk or Virgin.
AOL UK is owned by Carphone Warehouse who also own Talk Talk. Anyone know if AOL is involved in this?
Walking around the streets is PUBLIC. But if some person follows you around to note which shops you visit, and then uses this information to put billboards in front of your face as you walk around, that's stalking, and is illegal.
I sometimes wonder if atheist fundamentalists like the parent poster are as much of a threat to mankind as christian, muslim and jewish fundamentalists.
If you actually read the bible, the koran or the torah, you will read a lot more about love and forgivness than you do about killing people you don't like.
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't really open to interpretation. It is absolutely clear what it means.
Almost a decade isn't really pushing that much. Windows 2000 was released in February 2000, and if you upgraded to it on release day, that is more than nine years ago - almost a decade.
Yes there is. You have to activate within 30 days or you can't use the software.
There are patches around that get round that, but if you run Windows Update, then from time to time, the patched copy of the relevant file will get updated with a real one, and then it will discover that you don't have a legit copy, and you can't use the software until you find another patch.
Alternatively it means you can't run Windows Update, and your computer gets left open to all the security exploits that it might otherwise fix.
Remember probability in math class? 3 questions of two choices apiece with one set of correct answers = 1 / (2*2*2) = 1/8
Use that for 2 pictures and you get (1/8) * (1/8) = 1/64. 3 pictures gets you 1/512. Make them sequential (do the first 3, then second 3, then third 3, and immediately fail if you mess up mid-way through) and you have some really small chance that the bot will get through. And they're not going to sit there and try to break your captcha 5000 times for those 5000 accounts they want to create. Block their IP for 5 minutes if they fail it 3 times and you've got an almost foolproof system.
There's a limit to how many questions you can ask before legitimate users give up and go to another site. This is well below the limit that makes it uneconomical for a botnet to answer randomly.
Remember that botnets have millions of IP addresses at their disposal, so banning IP address won't help.
The legitimate user can try again if he knows he is being blocked. If I have to read through 100 spams to find him, he is as good as being blocked anyway.
The animal one won't internationalise very well. For example, a cow is a pet in India and food in most other parts of the world. A dog is food in China, and a pet in most other parts of the world.
Gumtree is a lot more popular than Craigslist in Britain.
I guess it is the network effect again. Gumtree has a lot more British ads, so more Brits visit it. People put their ads their because more people see them.
Slashdot Mirror
Phorm is only opt-in to the extent that you agree a contract with them to display Phorm ads on your site.
It is opt-out as regards Phorm traking what your visitors get up to on your site.
I did read the article. In fact I saw it on the BBC before I saw it on slashdot, and would have posted it here myself if someone else hadn't already done so.
There's nothing obvious on Phorm's website about how to opt-out as a website owner.
It doesn't say anywhere how you opt your own website out of this.
I suggest everyone does this, no-matter how small or insignificant your site it.
IE is only used for Windows 2003/XP and earlier systems. Vista/2008 has its own separate updating program.
Phorm doesn't know which machine account you are using, or even which machine you are using. It just knows what traffic is going down the phoneline.
So if you have one person in the house looking at horse porn, and his daughter looking at OMG Ponies! sites, it can't tell them apart.
As I understand it, the ads appear on pages where the site owner has chosen to use phorm for their ads, rather than for example doubleclick or google adwords. But the difference is that phorm will display ads based on the profile it gets from BT, Talk Talk or Virgin.
AOL UK is owned by Carphone Warehouse who also own Talk Talk. Anyone know if AOL is involved in this?
Walking around the streets is PUBLIC. But if some person follows you around to note which shops you visit, and then uses this information to put billboards in front of your face as you walk around, that's stalking, and is illegal.
They may well use iTunes to watch their training videos.
I sometimes wonder if atheist fundamentalists like the parent poster are as much of a threat to mankind as christian, muslim and jewish fundamentalists.
If you actually read the bible, the koran or the torah, you will read a lot more about love and forgivness than you do about killing people you don't like.
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't really open to interpretation. It is absolutely clear what it means.
Like a supermarket carpark for example?
The real world uses Adobe Flash.
Almost a decade isn't really pushing that much. Windows 2000 was released in February 2000, and if you upgraded to it on release day, that is more than nine years ago - almost a decade.
Their cash mountain has just about vanished though.
Yes there is. You have to activate within 30 days or you can't use the software.
There are patches around that get round that, but if you run Windows Update, then from time to time, the patched copy of the relevant file will get updated with a real one, and then it will discover that you don't have a legit copy, and you can't use the software until you find another patch.
Alternatively it means you can't run Windows Update, and your computer gets left open to all the security exploits that it might otherwise fix.
Remember probability in math class? 3 questions of two choices apiece with one set of correct answers = 1 / (2*2*2) = 1/8
Use that for 2 pictures and you get (1/8) * (1/8) = 1/64. 3 pictures gets you 1/512. Make them sequential (do the first 3, then second 3, then third 3, and immediately fail if you mess up mid-way through) and you have some really small chance that the bot will get through. And they're not going to sit there and try to break your captcha 5000 times for those 5000 accounts they want to create. Block their IP for 5 minutes if they fail it 3 times and you've got an almost foolproof system.
There's a limit to how many questions you can ask before legitimate users give up and go to another site. This is well below the limit that makes it uneconomical for a botnet to answer randomly.
Remember that botnets have millions of IP addresses at their disposal, so banning IP address won't help.
They are all yes/no answers. A bot answering randomly would get them right 50% of the time, so that would be completely useless.
The spammers use botnets to send spam these days, so have a lot of IP addresses.
Some ISPs, and most large companies have lots of people behind a NAT router, and they would be adversely impacted by this.
The legitimate user can try again if he knows he is being blocked. If I have to read through 100 spams to find him, he is as good as being blocked anyway.
The animal one won't internationalise very well. For example, a cow is a pet in India and food in most other parts of the world. A dog is food in China, and a pet in most other parts of the world.
Gumtree is a lot more popular than Craigslist in Britain.
I guess it is the network effect again. Gumtree has a lot more British ads, so more Brits visit it. People put their ads their because more people see them.
Basically, anything new is likely to be less reliable than something that is tried and tested.
Eg, Windows XP is more reliable than Vista, and much more reliable than it was when it first came out.
Symbian seems to have a worse track record for viruses than Windows Mobile.
In my experience people want phones first and foremost to send text messages, and to take and send photos.
Hard drives and fans will be the first to fail as they have moving parts.
You can get systems that don't need fans, but replacing the hard drives with flash memory probably isn't going to help reliability.
Yes, and you generally stuck a paperclip into the hole. You had to push it in way to far for a pen to be any use.