Actually, in an amusing twist of history, he was IBMs lead lawyer in their successful defense of the anti-trust trust case brought against them (by the government) in the 1980s.
He most certainly won that one, as we still have Big Blue, and not a bunch of baby blues running around.
Neither does AAC by default. DRM has to be built "on top" of it. You can do the same thing with mp3s or even OGG if you wanted to (technically at least, though the licence may preclude it).
Security Update 2003-03-03
The Security Update addresses a security issue in sendmail where a remote individual could gain access and control of the system. Although sendmail is off by default in Mac OS, it is recommended that all users install this Security Update. This update also includes a newer version of OpenSSL that provides improved data confidentiality by addressing a recently-discovered security issue.
A little research is usually good, and a basic understanding of how WebObjects works usually helps. When you login to a webobjects app (webmail in this case) you get a unique session id that becomes part of the url and is passed to the app with every transaction. This is how it identifies the user. This session id is only used once. If the user logs out, and logs in again, they get a new session id. What is happening in this case is that whomever discovered this "security hole" copied the url to the email, did not logout of webmail, quit the browser (or opened a different one) and pasted the url in there, voila, the email shows up. However, if (s)he clicked the logout button before attempting to open the url it would not have worked. Try it yourself to verify if you don't believe me.
Cheers
Re:It's sounds better than a polygraph.
on
The Eyes Have It
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If they can really catch 3 out of 4 liars, and "avoid" 9 out of 10 innocents,
(which is what the article claims inventors claim) then it's much better than 75%.
If 1 in 100 people are "liars" then this would be nearly 90% effective.
Which again sounds good until consider that identifying everybody as innocent would be 99% accurate.
Using those numbers it is actually far far less than 90% effective. If 1 in 100 are liars, that means 10 in 1000 are. You have two populations to work with 990 innocent people, and 10 who lie. The test is 90% accurate on the innocent, which means it false reports 99 people as liars (10%). The test is 75% accurate on liars, so (rounding up) it reports 8 of the 10 liars as guilty, and 2 as innocent. This gives us a total of 107 people reported as liars, when only 8 of those actually are a rate of 7.47% accuracy. And that doesn't count the 2 liars it missed!
But it seems to me that the human brain is a pretty good example of asynchronous computing? The last time I checked, there wasn't any sort of high frequency clock signal running down my spine.
Actually this isn't necessarily true. According to the neurobio classes I took in college, there is a 60Hz signal/cycle in the brain. Like most things in the brain, they are not certain about exactly what it does. However, it has been theorized to be sort of a global "sync" signal of some sort.
What most americans don't seem to realize is that they live in a society where information is controlled by the big media corporations.
It is not just American society in which information is controlled by a few big corporations. Over 75% of the entire worlds communications are controlled by just 4 companies: General Electric, Disney, CBS, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Even worse is that they are all in bed w/ each other, so it is really more like 1 company.
I would venture to say that there are a great many things that a human can do that a machine cannot do. Original thought and emotion are two things that leap immediately to mind. Another would be the design of the machine in the first place. Machines can certainly aid in such tasks, making a great many things easier, others possible, but they can't do a thing without humans controlling them. Much like a hammer can't pound in a nail all of its own ambition.
Virus behavior, that is probably just about impossible to nail down, as in humans computer viruses vary so dramatically in their effects that it would be very difficult to neatly define their "behavior". That doesn't mean that it would be impossible to detect the presence of a previously unknown virus. Our body does it by noticing changes from normal operation in cells (different proteins on the surface, dna messed up, etc), and it (the immune system) isn't intelligent in the conscious sense (as I think you were referring to). A similar type of thing shouldn't be impossible to impliment on a computer either.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that turns out not to be the case. Steve Jobs is employee #2.
Actually, in an amusing twist of history, he was IBMs lead lawyer in their successful defense of the anti-trust trust case brought against them (by the government) in the 1980s.
He most certainly won that one, as we still have Big Blue, and not a bunch of baby blues running around.
Neither does AAC by default. DRM has to be built "on top" of it. You can do the same thing with mp3s or even OGG if you wanted to (technically at least, though the licence may preclude it).
Comment from the software update app:
A little research is usually good, and a basic understanding of how WebObjects works usually helps. When you login to a webobjects app (webmail in this case) you get a unique session id that becomes part of the url and is passed to the app with every transaction. This is how it identifies the user. This session id is only used once. If the user logs out, and logs in again, they get a new session id. What is happening in this case is that whomever discovered this "security hole" copied the url to the email, did not logout of webmail, quit the browser (or opened a different one) and pasted the url in there, voila, the email shows up. However, if (s)he clicked the logout button before attempting to open the url it would not have worked. Try it yourself to verify if you don't believe me.
Cheers
If they can really catch 3 out of 4 liars, and "avoid" 9 out of 10 innocents, (which is what the article claims inventors claim) then it's much better than 75%. If 1 in 100 people are "liars" then this would be nearly 90% effective. Which again sounds good until consider that identifying everybody as innocent would be 99% accurate.
Using those numbers it is actually far far less than 90% effective. If 1 in 100 are liars, that means 10 in 1000 are. You have two populations to work with 990 innocent people, and 10 who lie. The test is 90% accurate on the innocent, which means it false reports 99 people as liars (10%). The test is 75% accurate on liars, so (rounding up) it reports 8 of the 10 liars as guilty, and 2 as innocent. This gives us a total of 107 people reported as liars, when only 8 of those actually are a rate of 7.47% accuracy. And that doesn't count the 2 liars it missed!
Cheers!
**Saithier
Actually this isn't necessarily true. According to the neurobio classes I took in college, there is a 60Hz signal/cycle in the brain. Like most things in the brain, they are not certain about exactly what it does. However, it has been theorized to be sort of a global "sync" signal of some sort.
It is not just American society in which information is controlled by a few big corporations. Over 75% of the entire worlds communications are controlled by just 4 companies: General Electric, Disney, CBS, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Even worse is that they are all in bed w/ each other, so it is really more like 1 company.
I would venture to say that there are a great many things that a human can do that a machine cannot do. Original thought and emotion are two things that leap immediately to mind. Another would be the design of the machine in the first place. Machines can certainly aid in such tasks, making a great many things easier, others possible, but they can't do a thing without humans controlling them. Much like a hammer can't pound in a nail all of its own ambition.
Virus behavior, that is probably just about impossible to nail down, as in humans computer viruses vary so dramatically in their effects that it would be very difficult to neatly define their "behavior". That doesn't mean that it would be impossible to detect the presence of a previously unknown virus. Our body does it by noticing changes from normal operation in cells (different proteins on the surface, dna messed up, etc), and it (the immune system) isn't intelligent in the conscious sense (as I think you were referring to). A similar type of thing shouldn't be impossible to impliment on a computer either.