Are you telling me that there are programmers willing to go through [Insert Ludicrously Large Number Here] files and "annotate" them using XML to fit the new system?
No, they're writing software to put in the XML tags.
What will be more interesting to see is if it's possible to pollute the database by putting in your own XML. Instead of Google-Bombing we'll have people pissing in the WebFountain.
Maybe statistical analysis can determine if a given image or other medium is possibly hiding information. But if that information is encrypted, doesn't it look like random data without the key? Without knowing the key or even the cipher used to encrypt it... how can it be shown to actually be information? "That's just random noise/corruption in my images your honor... I dont know what your talking about"
Statistical analysis can indeed detect where hidden information is placed into an image, usually by noticing that the balance of the image is off. In fact, using encrypted data is more likely to stand out because images are not usually populated with statistically random data.
Here's a piece on scanning Usenet for hidden images. As a broadcast medium you'd expect it to be most frequently used as you can anonymously post material and it is well-nigh impossible to locate the intended recipient.
Well, I disagree. I think some protectionism IS worth it. I like my way of life, and I'm not willing to sacrifice it so the capitalist elite can get bigger bonuses or the pedantic economists can proclaim "more efficient markets".
Is capitalism of any form, be it protectionism or rampant free trade, really an effective answer?
If you'd read some of the better books about socialism you might not think so, you might understand that capitalism is what is referred to as "The Money trick".
Here's how the money trick works...
Imagine I'm the capitalist, I control the raw materials and the means of production. For raw materials we'll use a loaf of bread, for the means of production we'll use a knife. You, the employee, are employed to slice the bread and cut it into half-inch chunks. You are expected to produce five chunks per week and paid $1 for that work.
Now, I give you your raw materials and tools and off you go, a happy little bunny with plenty of work and at the end of the week I take my five chunks of end product and pay you your $1. You now have to buy what you need to live with that $1. Guess what? You need one chunk of bread to live... And I'm gonna charge you $0.99 for it.
Fast forward six months and I've got a warehouse full of end product, I no longer need you working because I've a stockpile of product to sell so you're redundant. You've got 26 cents in savings, exactly how long can you live off that?
The translation of the press release makes for mangled reading but if I follow it correctly the law is such that you are permitted to make private copies of CDs you've bought. There's also some vague reference to a "tax" on equipment for copying, but I don't think that's ever been implemented.
Belgium is a small country, so what impact is this likely to have on major record labels? They seem hell-bent on continuing this practice, and I can't see them doing Belgian-specific pressings to get around this. Even if they did, you'd probably find that it was made illegal for US citizens to import CDs from Belgium.
I wonder is people create these lists to try and guide the future course of technology. By trying to predict what will technologies will be created, those that actually create tend to think along these same lines and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That's an interesting idea.
However, I think the prediction of "Kitchen rage" by 2013 is working from existing lines of development.
Picture it... A houseperson threatening to reprogram their talking toaster(TM) with a carving knife.
Please specify light or dark brown for your toast.
Toast this you electronic abomination!
Bzzzt!
Hello, Emergency Services? My owner is unconscious following electrocution.
What's the big hang up of hacker vs cracker? I understand both meaning of hacker and the definition of cracker. So why the persistence with insisting hackers should be called crackers?
In this case the article doesn't even make a distinction between good hackers and bad hackers. It assumes that, by definition, "hacker" means someone who carries out illegal acts.
In the case of Yaron, 39, a former hacker who
now owns an information security company...
Whoever wrote this article does equate "hacker" with criminal. Why else label someone who sets up an information security company as a "former hacker"?
"The presence of new computer technology aids cybercriminals from hackers to cyberterrorists, offenders who, to a great degree, depend upon the lack of technological skills of law enforcement...".
From this I conclude that all the attendees, including the reporter, left that little session assuming "to hack" meant "to commit an illegal act with a computer". Is that really the idea you want the police to have when, if casually asked, your brother/sister/parents might respond that you "work with computers and are a bit of a hacker"?
Unfortunately, when the tenant moves out they're going to want to take all their switching equipment with them. That leaves a load of loose wires which may or may not be labelled.
Come time to use wiring in an office you have to search through bundles of cables to find the ones you want. If the cable you find doesn't work you're left wondering if it's incorrectly labelled and comes out somewhere else, or is simply broken. If it's broken you've got the expense of laying in replacements, if it's mislabelled you've an expensive analysis job to undertake.
So, no, using someone else's second-hand wiring is not zero cost.
This has nothing to do with open vs. closed source. It has everything to do with bad engineering practices on the part of the e-voting companies.
Actually, the analysis of the problem is flawed and software is not really a good solution to obtaining the final count.
Any voting system should be open and transparent, it should therefor be auditable. In business you are expected to keep records for auditors to go through. You have to be able to trace the origin of every transaction. Then you should be able to verify it's authenticity.
Paper-based voting systems retain enough information to keep the system auditable, and auditable in a manner that most people can understand. A "click here to vote for Fred" solution cannot meet that requirement and ensure an acceptable level of voter privacy. Once that information is inside a computer it's too easily copied and potentially misused.
I've nothing against having a voter-blind computerised system to give a predicted total, but I'd be very uncomfortable having that system deciding who gets elected. The deciding totals have to come from a process that can be observed by all interested parties and is exceedingly difficult for them to subvert in any way.
>Is VoIP the same thing as these FREE (ad supported) PC-to-phone services which existed before the tech bubble burst?
I never encountered ad supported PC-to phone services but recall absolutely dreadful pay services with echoes and long delays. Thankfully things have moved on a long way from there. VoIP is like talking on a cellphone in terms of quality and delay. With something like Free World Dialup you can talk, Geek to Geek, across the Internet for free, and there are underlying standards such as an agreed upon international prefix to access VoIP.
If you browse the FWD mailing list you'll discover other goodies like POTS->FWD gateways down a large chunk of the East Coast of the US. There's also gateways in other countries, Washington State numbers that reach your FWD line etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"The technology between your desk and couch".
WTF is that? A remote-controlled motorised office chair? And how will it manage to get down the stairs?
No, they're writing software to put in the XML tags.
What will be more interesting to see is if it's possible to pollute the database by putting in your own XML. Instead of Google-Bombing we'll have people pissing in the WebFountain.
Statistical analysis can indeed detect where hidden information is placed into an image, usually by noticing that the balance of the image is off. In fact, using encrypted data is more likely to stand out because images are not usually populated with statistically random data.
Here's a piece on scanning Usenet for hidden images. As a broadcast medium you'd expect it to be most frequently used as you can anonymously post material and it is well-nigh impossible to locate the intended recipient.
Is capitalism of any form, be it protectionism or rampant free trade, really an effective answer?
If you'd read some of the better books about socialism you might not think so, you might understand that capitalism is what is referred to as "The Money trick".
Here's how the money trick works...
Imagine I'm the capitalist, I control the raw materials and the means of production. For raw materials we'll use a loaf of bread, for the means of production we'll use a knife. You, the employee, are employed to slice the bread and cut it into half-inch chunks. You are expected to produce five chunks per week and paid $1 for that work.
Now, I give you your raw materials and tools and off you go, a happy little bunny with plenty of work and at the end of the week I take my five chunks of end product and pay you your $1. You now have to buy what you need to live with that $1. Guess what? You need one chunk of bread to live... And I'm gonna charge you $0.99 for it.
Fast forward six months and I've got a warehouse full of end product, I no longer need you working because I've a stockpile of product to sell so you're redundant. You've got 26 cents in savings, exactly how long can you live off that?
The translation of the press release makes for mangled reading but if I follow it correctly the law is such that you are permitted to make private copies of CDs you've bought. There's also some vague reference to a "tax" on equipment for copying, but I don't think that's ever been implemented.
Belgium is a small country, so what impact is this likely to have on major record labels? They seem hell-bent on continuing this practice, and I can't see them doing Belgian-specific pressings to get around this. Even if they did, you'd probably find that it was made illegal for US citizens to import CDs from Belgium.
However, I think the prediction of "Kitchen rage" by 2013 is working from existing lines of development.
Picture it... A houseperson threatening to reprogram their talking toaster(TM) with a carving knife.
Please specify light or dark brown for your toast.
Toast this you electronic abomination!
Bzzzt!
Hello, Emergency Services? My owner is unconscious following electrocution.
Twelve to life for that toaster!
What's the big hang up of hacker vs cracker? I understand both meaning of hacker and the definition of cracker. So why the persistence with insisting hackers should be called crackers?
...".
In this case the article doesn't even make a distinction between good hackers and bad hackers. It assumes that, by definition, "hacker" means someone who carries out illegal acts.
In the case of Yaron, 39, a former hacker who now owns an information security company...
Whoever wrote this article does equate "hacker" with criminal. Why else label someone who sets up an information security company as a "former hacker"?
The researcher obviously isn't much better. The paper the reporter has used for this piece comes from the "Understanding and Controlling Cybercrime in the 21st Century" session given to/at the American Society of Criminology. Other papers include "Exploring Criminal Traits of Online Offenders", and ""Hardening the Target" in Cyberspace: Assessing Technology, Methods, and Information for Committing and Combating Cyber Crime".
From the latter...
"The presence of new computer technology aids cybercriminals from hackers to cyberterrorists, offenders who, to a great degree, depend upon the lack of technological skills of law enforcement
From this I conclude that all the attendees, including the reporter, left that little session assuming "to hack" meant "to commit an illegal act with a computer". Is that really the idea you want the police to have when, if casually asked, your brother/sister/parents might respond that you "work with computers and are a bit of a hacker"?
I hope not!
Leaving ethernet points in = $0
Unfortunately, when the tenant moves out they're going to want to take all their switching equipment with them. That leaves a load of loose wires which may or may not be labelled.
Come time to use wiring in an office you have to search through bundles of cables to find the ones you want. If the cable you find doesn't work you're left wondering if it's incorrectly labelled and comes out somewhere else, or is simply broken. If it's broken you've got the expense of laying in replacements, if it's mislabelled you've an expensive analysis job to undertake.
So, no, using someone else's second-hand wiring is not zero cost.
This has nothing to do with open vs. closed source. It has everything to do with bad engineering practices on the part of the e-voting companies.
Actually, the analysis of the problem is flawed and software is not really a good solution to obtaining the final count.
Any voting system should be open and transparent, it should therefor be auditable. In business you are expected to keep records for auditors to go through. You have to be able to trace the origin of every transaction. Then you should be able to verify it's authenticity.
Paper-based voting systems retain enough information to keep the system auditable, and auditable in a manner that most people can understand. A "click here to vote for Fred" solution cannot meet that requirement and ensure an acceptable level of voter privacy. Once that information is inside a computer it's too easily copied and potentially misused.
I've nothing against having a voter-blind computerised system to give a predicted total, but I'd be very uncomfortable having that system deciding who gets elected. The deciding totals have to come from a process that can be observed by all interested parties and is exceedingly difficult for them to subvert in any way.
>Is VoIP the same thing as these FREE (ad supported) PC-to-phone services which existed before the tech bubble burst?
I never encountered ad supported PC-to phone services but recall absolutely dreadful pay services with echoes and long delays. Thankfully things have moved on a long way from there. VoIP is like talking on a cellphone in terms of quality and delay. With something like Free World Dialup you can talk, Geek to Geek, across the Internet for free, and there are underlying standards such as an agreed upon international prefix to access VoIP.
If you browse the FWD mailing list you'll discover other goodies like POTS->FWD gateways down a large chunk of the East Coast of the US. There's also gateways in other countries, Washington State numbers that reach your FWD line etc. etc.
Then there's the Linux-based PBX, Asterisk.
Welcome to the maze of twistly little voiceprompts that are all subtly different.