I'm not an idiot, I can tell when content is infringing copyright or not, and I'll deal with it.
Well, you're British so YMMV, but that would be an absolutely stupid move to make as an ISP in the United States. ISPs can be considered 'common carriers' that are only responsible for providing access to the internet and cannot be held responsible for the usage of the internet by their customers due to the fact that it is infeasible to monitor and control that usage. If you were to start censoring copyrighted music from your network, you could be implicated and potentially arrested for providing access to child pornography, if a user was able to access the porn from your network. After all, if you're preventing access to resource A (music) and allowing access to resource B (child porn, and everything not 'music'), then you must be explicitly accepting that use of your network.
Here's my letter to the local University of Tennessee newspaper ("The Daily Beacon"):
Now that the University of Tennessee system has taken a budget cut of
$21.2 million dollars, one might expect that the state would be
carefully deciding how to spend the money that is available. However,
this is apparently not the case. On November 12th, two days after the
Daily Beacon covered the story of the UT system's budget cuts,
Governor Bredesen signed senate bill 3974 into law, and committed the
Tennessee higher educational system to spending (according to the
government's own estimates) an additional $9.5 million one-time cost,
and between $1.6-$1.9 million dollars every year from now on. What
could be worth spending this much money (which amounts to 45% of the
budget cut)? The University of Tennessee is going to spend this money
making your internet connection go even slower: UT will now be
responsible for preventing the sharing of copyrighted music and
movies. Because of senate bill 3974 and Governor Bredesen, Tennessee
law now states that "each public and private institution of higher
education in the state that has student residential computer networks
shall: [...] attempt to prevent the infringement of copyrighted works
over the institution's computer and network resources."
The Recording Industry Association of America and the Movie Production
Association of America are understandably thrilled about this law.
The RIAA and MPAA are the organizations that have filed thousands upon
thousands of lawsuits against students, children, and grandmothers for
infringing copyright by sharing movies and music over the internet.
Because of their lobbying efforts, the University of Tennessee is now
legally responsible for enforcing their will and doing their dirty
work. In a time that the economy is doing worse than it has for many
years and the University of Tennessee is seeing budget cuts of over
$20 million dollars, we are now being forced to pay over $10 million
dollars (for the first year, and $1.9 million each year afterwards) in
order to make sure that the RIAA and MPAA make as much money as
possible and stop losing profits to those rotten thieving students
that steal all of their revenue.
Robert Coop
Doctoral Student,
Computer Engineering
spent more than twice that programs budget renovating the stadium for a struggling football team
Well, to be fair it's necessary to mention the fact that the UT sports budget is actually generated by sports activities and does not come from the general budget. So, the renovations were paid for by football ticket sales, etc. Should (all or some portion of) the profits football ticket sales be used for academic purposes? I believe so, but that's debatable. Either way, it's unfair to say that the sports activities detract from the general budget; it's separate.
As a University of Tennessee student, I am pretty pissed. I posted copies of the Ars Technica (I believe) article that discussed this bill as it was making its way through the congress; absolutely everyone who read it was amazed and pissed that such a thing was even being talked about, including university employees that will become responsible for enforcement. Even worse is the fact that the University of Tennessee is currently undergoing massive budget cuts, and I'm sure that this money that now legally must be spent will be dollars that used to be used educating Tennesseans and others.
Regarding budget cuts, from the campus paper linked above:
The University of Tennessee system sustained an initial $21.2 million budget cut in June, followed by an additional October impoundment of $17 million. All campuses have been affected and have taken similar measures, of varying degrees of severity, to offset these reductions.
As a result of the initial cut, the Knoxville campus reduced its budget by $11,452,500; the Chattanooga campus by $2,682,200; the Martin campus by $1,965,000; and the UT Health Sciences Center by $2,751,500, according to the proposed budget for the 2009 fiscal year, released by the UT System Budget and Finance Office. Other UT branches affected included the Space Institute, the Institute of Agriculture, the Institute for Public Administration and the Systems Administration division.
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. [...] Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
I call bullshit. Think your argument through a bit... Lawyers enable litigation. Unethical lawyers pursue unethical cases for their (or their client's) unfair gain. 'Sleazebag' lawyers convince weak willed people to do things beneficial to the lawyer.
Ok, so lets get rid of all the lawyers! However, we want a peaceful society, so lets keep the laws. In that case, we want to give people fair trials, so let's keep the courts. Great! Now we have laws, courts, judges, but no lawyers! Society will run just fine. Let's look at what would happen then...
Society enables litigation. Unethical members of society pursue unethical cases for their (or their employer's) unfair gain. 'Sleazebag' members of society convince weak willed people to do things beneficial to the sleazebag. The unethical members of society take it upon themselves to gain a good knowledge of how the law works. Their victims have no readily available access to anyone knowledgeable about the law and are easily taken advantage of.
Facial recognition software typically relies on things that cannot be easily changed. You can reconstruct the entire skin tissue of the face, but you can't (practically) change the distance between your eye sockets, the distance from the eye socket to the ear or to the top of the head. Underlying bone structure is hard to change...
Why drive out and cast a meaningless vote when the swing voters have decided for me?
Guess what? When you're trying to influence an election where the person with the majority of votes is the winner, removing one vote from the vote pool has the effect of giving the other votes more sway. You are literally giving the ignorant voters more say over the course of this nation because you don't want to 'reward' the candidate with your vote. Instead you'd rather reward the candidate by making other votes count more. If you're really pissed off, vote third-party. Will they win? Hell no. But, it will detract from the percentage of people who voted for party 1 or 2, and those percentages are what determines how much public funding third party candidates get to campaign with.
Grow some balls and stand for something. Don't rationalize your own apathy to me; you just enable the current system we have. I'm trying to actually change something.
Phew. I almost wasted a lot of time reading that long comment. Good thing I noticed this part quickly:
We are screwed. So do what I'm doing. Stay home and don't vote.
Now I know I can safely just disregard you, because the moral is that if you don't vote then you don't have a say in the political process, formal or otherwise. You're not making a difference, you're not making a stand, and you're not sending a message. What you are doing is convincing politicians that they are indeed doing the right thing by trying to disenfranchise US citizens. If they piss you off and your response is "Hah! You may stomp on my rights and preferences, but I'll get you back by letting you do whatever you damn well please" then you are not just irrelevant; you are the problem.
They weren't. The lines were paid for by the telecoms. They're owned by the telecoms.
The closest to "public money" you can get is the fact that frequently the lines run along public roads. In order to be allowed to use public space, the telecoms have to provide service to certain areas.
True, but that's not the biggest point. The thing that the telecoms were granted from the government that (ought to) make them indebted to the public is the power to string utility lines all around my property so that they can turn a profit. I'm not talking about the lines that service my home but the lines that go through my property to service other's homes. There are many places with high-voltage lines strewn all over the place, and the owner of the property does not have the ability to charge the telecoms for their use of the owner's land.
Bzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. With SSL, the authentication phase happens before the encryption phase [...] If you can't authenticate that the keys were generated by the person/machine they were supposed to be generated by, you can't assume the encryption keys have not been falsified.
Bzzzt, wrong! Authentication does in fact require encryption. The authentication uses asymmetric (public/private key) encryption, because my authentication key is somewhat useless if, once I authenticate myself to you, you are able to repeat the key I gave you and falsely authenticate as me to any other party.
You are right that the authentication occurs before the symmetric encryption keys are exchanged. However, this stage of the communications clearly needs to be encrypted as well; if someone eavesdrops on the key exchange then the whole scheme is somewhat useless. The reason that authentication occurs using asymmetric encryption and then negotiates keys for symmetric encryption is that asymmetric encryption is much more computationally intensive than symmetric encryption.
Except breaking SSL with a self-signed cert can be automated and simple. If someone else controls any part of the path between you and the destination(read ISP, access point owner, etc), they can automatically man-in-the-middle any connection with a self-signed cert.
So use the same approach as SSH... Silently accept a self-signed cert for a website that I have had no prior contact with (but do not indicate that the site is 'secure'), but if I have contacted a site with a CA signed cert previously and it now has a self-signed cert then sound all the alarm bells. Hell, Google, Microsoft, or the CAs can relatively easily create a directory that allows me to look up the last known cert used for a domain and the CA signing status.
Blah, I'm dumping my mods for the thread down the tubes, but this is important...
Raymond says that such tactics have evolved from some of the more overt voter intimidation schemes seen back in the early 1980s when the GOP's "Ballot Security Task Force" used armed off-duty police officers at the polling places in New Jersey and posted signs reading "voter fraud is a felony." Other underhanded tactics...
So, reminding people that voter fraud is a felony is voter intimidation? Wrong.
Perhaps 'reminding people that voter fraud is a felony' is not voter intimidation. Reminding people that voter fraud is a felony using armed men in uniform is voter intimidation. Are the armed men protecting themselves against similarly armed voter fraudsters? No. The armed men are there to take advantage of the fact that there are very clear demographic statistics that show that some segments of the population (not to be racist, but it's typically African-American and Hispanic citizens) are very afraid of the police (and looking at history, perhaps rightly so). The fact that the men are armed does nothing to assist in 'preventing voter fraud' and does everything to scare away citizens who are skittish of authority and perhaps view their vote as a means of resistance that will not be welcomed by the armed guards...
Another example of this same set of tactics: a company establishes an international branch in a low-tax area. The company then sells all of its intellectual property to the international 'holding' company. The domestic company then licenses the IP from the international company for a very large amount of money per month/quarter/year/etc. The domestic company gets to write off the licensing fees as tax-deductible operating expenses, and the international company is not taxed on the income. It's a great scam, because of course in reality the international company and the domestic company are controlled by the same parties. This is why so many of the copyright notices for an ad are in a different name than the company... "Copyright 2008 Bob's IP Holding corp.'
Don't you know, it's important for the economy to pass it as quickly as possible. Not because the economy would stop, but because a 2 day delay meant 400+ pages of unrelated pork and complications to the tax code.
Well, the original reason that it was important to pass ASAP right-this-very-moment is that the original bill text, as recommended to the legislative branch by the executive branch (treasury secretary and president), contained a clause that said "any actions taken by the secretary under this bill are not review-able by the legislative branch nor are they contestable in any court of law."
President Bush demands that the legislative branch provides him with un-checked power and authority to dispose of $700 billion in the last few months of his administration? Sounds like nothing but a power grab to me.
GET requests in practice change stuff on the server. Making everything POSTs is just annoying - you get all those "click OK to resubmit form" messages and you don't even know what form it is.
... CSRF exploits are not the reason that GET requests shouldn't change anything on the server. Implement all of your secret one time link programs, but you'll be disappointed when someone using an 'internet accelerator' that pre-fetches pages comes by and illustrates the reason that GET ought to be separate from POST...
-Any taken-advantage-of borrower requires an even-more-taken-advantage-of lender. The borrower gets to walk away, at least having a gained some time in a home they shouldn't have moved into, while the lender suffers a huge loss. (Of course what actually happened here was the immediate lender, a broker, pocketed a huge gain and dumped it on other investors.)
I love how you gloss over this statement in parenthesis as if it's a minor point. The situation that occurred is that predatory lenders issued ARM mortgages to people that they knew would be unable to pay for them. Keep in mind, the issuing bank has a full financial report of the borrower's income, debts, and credit history. These bankers then offered deals such as "you can have a fixed rate mortgage, but you'll need a $10k down payment, but if you get an ARM, we can do it without a down payment!" I live in Tennessee, and by and far this state is not as hard hit as some others. One of the reasons is that we have protective lending laws. In this state, you cannot get a mortgage without a 10% (IIRC) down payment. That may seem unfair to those who cannot afford the down payment, but it's for their own good; if they can't afford the 10% down, odds are they cannot afford the mortgage, and a bank should be prevented from signing them into a contract they cannot afford to pay off.
I'm a doctoral student in computer engineering, and have been playing with different methods of doing this for some time. Does your algorithm only used fixed rules, or are there elements of adaptive pattern recognition (neural networks, genetic algorithms) and of behavior adaption (reinforcement learning) involved?
I'd sincerely like to work with you on combining your approach with the one that I am producing for my dissertation. E-mail me at rcoop (at) utk (d0t) edu if you'd be interested in discussing different approaches and methods.
The only new thing here, which is truely shocking, is that the system is about minors, who have practically no means to exercise pressure on a governmental system.
Not shocking at all, really. You have to consider the goals of a system such as this... It obviously is tailored to contain any person who might become influential in changing the social or political order of things. As such, it's a natural extension of that to want to collect the data as early on in the life of these people as possible. The goal isn't to use the data to catch criminals, to monitor all the actions of everyone, or other nonsense; the goal is obviously to identify those that would change the social or political order so that those people can be politically assassinated (have all of their political or social influence negated) _before_ they actually change things.
I hope your wrong (especially since I'm about to become a grandad) but GW is just one of many signs that we are racing toward a global population crash of biblical proportions.
Even without indicators such as GW, anyone who cares to think about the situation the global population is in can clearly see that we're headed for a large die-off.
If you look at the historical trend of global population growth you can see that the global population has exploded in the recent past. One major cause of this population growth is the use of fossil fuels; using fossil fuels it is possible to produce more energy burning the fuel than it takes to retrieve the fuel. This energy allows us to produce food further from where it is consumed, to power farm equipment and produce more food with less farmers, to heat more homes with less raw materials,... , in essence we can support more life than before only because we have a source of fuel with a large net gain of energy. Fossil fuels artificially increase the Earth's 'carrying capacity' for human life. Looking in the indefinitely long-term future, fossil fuels are a limited quantity. Eventually, and the science isn't in yet with a reliable prediction of when, we will run out of these fuels. When that happens, the carrying capacity of Earth will go back to the normal level. We will no longer be able to produce food or to shelter as many people as before, and people will die until the population decreases enough.
Looking at another potential cause of a large die-off, one needs to only look at population density. Population density and disease rates are directly related. An area with a dense population will support the spread of disease more easily. See 'the black plague' for an example of what happened when Europe's population density hit that level.
irregular behaviour, if it goes on long enough, becomes classified as regular behaviour... and is then undetected.
That assumes the system is set to continue learning when in the field. It is common practice in this area to train a system in the lab until it behaves in a desired way, and then remove the portion of the neural net or other NLP that learns, leaving just the classification part.
I'm aware that making corrections to people's posts causes everyone to immediately jump on your small errors, but actually writing "itensive purposes" is just irritating.
Actually, I believe the person wrote "intensive purposes".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an idiot, I can tell when content is infringing copyright or not, and I'll deal with it.
Well, you're British so YMMV, but that would be an absolutely stupid move to make as an ISP in the United States. ISPs can be considered 'common carriers' that are only responsible for providing access to the internet and cannot be held responsible for the usage of the internet by their customers due to the fact that it is infeasible to monitor and control that usage. If you were to start censoring copyrighted music from your network, you could be implicated and potentially arrested for providing access to child pornography, if a user was able to access the porn from your network. After all, if you're preventing access to resource A (music) and allowing access to resource B (child porn, and everything not 'music'), then you must be explicitly accepting that use of your network.
Here's my letter to the local University of Tennessee newspaper ("The Daily Beacon"):
Now that the University of Tennessee system has taken a budget cut of $21.2 million dollars, one might expect that the state would be carefully deciding how to spend the money that is available. However, this is apparently not the case. On November 12th, two days after the Daily Beacon covered the story of the UT system's budget cuts, Governor Bredesen signed senate bill 3974 into law, and committed the Tennessee higher educational system to spending (according to the government's own estimates) an additional $9.5 million one-time cost, and between $1.6-$1.9 million dollars every year from now on. What could be worth spending this much money (which amounts to 45% of the budget cut)? The University of Tennessee is going to spend this money making your internet connection go even slower: UT will now be responsible for preventing the sharing of copyrighted music and movies. Because of senate bill 3974 and Governor Bredesen, Tennessee law now states that "each public and private institution of higher education in the state that has student residential computer networks shall: [...] attempt to prevent the infringement of copyrighted works over the institution's computer and network resources."
The Recording Industry Association of America and the Movie Production Association of America are understandably thrilled about this law. The RIAA and MPAA are the organizations that have filed thousands upon thousands of lawsuits against students, children, and grandmothers for infringing copyright by sharing movies and music over the internet. Because of their lobbying efforts, the University of Tennessee is now legally responsible for enforcing their will and doing their dirty work. In a time that the economy is doing worse than it has for many years and the University of Tennessee is seeing budget cuts of over $20 million dollars, we are now being forced to pay over $10 million dollars (for the first year, and $1.9 million each year afterwards) in order to make sure that the RIAA and MPAA make as much money as possible and stop losing profits to those rotten thieving students that steal all of their revenue.
Robert Coop
Doctoral Student,
Computer Engineering
Refer to my reply to an earlier reply about the sports budget. It's separate from the general academic budget.
Refer to my reply to an earlier reply about the sports budget. It's separate from the general academic budget.
spent more than twice that programs budget renovating the stadium for a struggling football team
Well, to be fair it's necessary to mention the fact that the UT sports budget is actually generated by sports activities and does not come from the general budget. So, the renovations were paid for by football ticket sales, etc. Should (all or some portion of) the profits football ticket sales be used for academic purposes? I believe so, but that's debatable. Either way, it's unfair to say that the sports activities detract from the general budget; it's separate.
Regarding budget cuts, from the campus paper linked above:
The University of Tennessee system sustained an initial $21.2 million budget cut in June, followed by an additional October impoundment of $17 million. All campuses have been affected and have taken similar measures, of varying degrees of severity, to offset these reductions.
As a result of the initial cut, the Knoxville campus reduced its budget by $11,452,500; the Chattanooga campus by $2,682,200; the Martin campus by $1,965,000; and the UT Health Sciences Center by $2,751,500, according to the proposed budget for the 2009 fiscal year, released by the UT System Budget and Finance Office. Other UT branches affected included the Space Institute, the Institute of Agriculture, the Institute for Public Administration and the Systems Administration division.
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. [...] Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
I call bullshit. Think your argument through a bit... Lawyers enable litigation. Unethical lawyers pursue unethical cases for their (or their client's) unfair gain. 'Sleazebag' lawyers convince weak willed people to do things beneficial to the lawyer.
Ok, so lets get rid of all the lawyers! However, we want a peaceful society, so lets keep the laws. In that case, we want to give people fair trials, so let's keep the courts. Great! Now we have laws, courts, judges, but no lawyers! Society will run just fine. Let's look at what would happen then...
Society enables litigation. Unethical members of society pursue unethical cases for their (or their employer's) unfair gain. 'Sleazebag' members of society convince weak willed people to do things beneficial to the sleazebag. The unethical members of society take it upon themselves to gain a good knowledge of how the law works. Their victims have no readily available access to anyone knowledgeable about the law and are easily taken advantage of.
Facial recognition software typically relies on things that cannot be easily changed. You can reconstruct the entire skin tissue of the face, but you can't (practically) change the distance between your eye sockets, the distance from the eye socket to the ear or to the top of the head. Underlying bone structure is hard to change...
Why drive out and cast a meaningless vote when the swing voters have decided for me?
Guess what? When you're trying to influence an election where the person with the majority of votes is the winner, removing one vote from the vote pool has the effect of giving the other votes more sway. You are literally giving the ignorant voters more say over the course of this nation because you don't want to 'reward' the candidate with your vote. Instead you'd rather reward the candidate by making other votes count more. If you're really pissed off, vote third-party. Will they win? Hell no. But, it will detract from the percentage of people who voted for party 1 or 2, and those percentages are what determines how much public funding third party candidates get to campaign with.
Grow some balls and stand for something. Don't rationalize your own apathy to me; you just enable the current system we have. I'm trying to actually change something.
We are screwed. So do what I'm doing. Stay home and don't vote.
Now I know I can safely just disregard you, because the moral is that if you don't vote then you don't have a say in the political process, formal or otherwise. You're not making a difference, you're not making a stand, and you're not sending a message. What you are doing is convincing politicians that they are indeed doing the right thing by trying to disenfranchise US citizens. If they piss you off and your response is "Hah! You may stomp on my rights and preferences, but I'll get you back by letting you do whatever you damn well please" then you are not just irrelevant; you are the problem.
They weren't. The lines were paid for by the telecoms. They're owned by the telecoms. The closest to "public money" you can get is the fact that frequently the lines run along public roads. In order to be allowed to use public space, the telecoms have to provide service to certain areas.
True, but that's not the biggest point. The thing that the telecoms were granted from the government that (ought to) make them indebted to the public is the power to string utility lines all around my property so that they can turn a profit. I'm not talking about the lines that service my home but the lines that go through my property to service other's homes. There are many places with high-voltage lines strewn all over the place, and the owner of the property does not have the ability to charge the telecoms for their use of the owner's land.
Authentication requires encryption.
Bzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. With SSL, the authentication phase happens before the encryption phase [...] If you can't authenticate that the keys were generated by the person/machine they were supposed to be generated by, you can't assume the encryption keys have not been falsified.
Bzzzt, wrong! Authentication does in fact require encryption. The authentication uses asymmetric (public/private key) encryption, because my authentication key is somewhat useless if, once I authenticate myself to you, you are able to repeat the key I gave you and falsely authenticate as me to any other party.
You are right that the authentication occurs before the symmetric encryption keys are exchanged. However, this stage of the communications clearly needs to be encrypted as well; if someone eavesdrops on the key exchange then the whole scheme is somewhat useless. The reason that authentication occurs using asymmetric encryption and then negotiates keys for symmetric encryption is that asymmetric encryption is much more computationally intensive than symmetric encryption.
Thanks for playing, though.
Except breaking SSL with a self-signed cert can be automated and simple. If someone else controls any part of the path between you and the destination(read ISP, access point owner, etc), they can automatically man-in-the-middle any connection with a self-signed cert.
So use the same approach as SSH... Silently accept a self-signed cert for a website that I have had no prior contact with (but do not indicate that the site is 'secure'), but if I have contacted a site with a CA signed cert previously and it now has a self-signed cert then sound all the alarm bells. Hell, Google, Microsoft, or the CAs can relatively easily create a directory that allows me to look up the last known cert used for a domain and the CA signing status.
Raymond says that such tactics have evolved from some of the more overt voter intimidation schemes seen back in the early 1980s when the GOP's "Ballot Security Task Force" used armed off-duty police officers at the polling places in New Jersey and posted signs reading "voter fraud is a felony." Other underhanded tactics...
So, reminding people that voter fraud is a felony is voter intimidation? Wrong.
Perhaps 'reminding people that voter fraud is a felony' is not voter intimidation. Reminding people that voter fraud is a felony using armed men in uniform is voter intimidation. Are the armed men protecting themselves against similarly armed voter fraudsters? No. The armed men are there to take advantage of the fact that there are very clear demographic statistics that show that some segments of the population (not to be racist, but it's typically African-American and Hispanic citizens) are very afraid of the police (and looking at history, perhaps rightly so). The fact that the men are armed does nothing to assist in 'preventing voter fraud' and does everything to scare away citizens who are skittish of authority and perhaps view their vote as a means of resistance that will not be welcomed by the armed guards...
Another example of this same set of tactics: a company establishes an international branch in a low-tax area. The company then sells all of its intellectual property to the international 'holding' company. The domestic company then licenses the IP from the international company for a very large amount of money per month/quarter/year/etc. The domestic company gets to write off the licensing fees as tax-deductible operating expenses, and the international company is not taxed on the income. It's a great scam, because of course in reality the international company and the domestic company are controlled by the same parties. This is why so many of the copyright notices for an ad are in a different name than the company... "Copyright 2008 Bob's IP Holding corp.'
Don't you know, it's important for the economy to pass it as quickly as possible. Not because the economy would stop, but because a 2 day delay meant 400+ pages of unrelated pork and complications to the tax code.
Well, the original reason that it was important to pass ASAP right-this-very-moment is that the original bill text, as recommended to the legislative branch by the executive branch (treasury secretary and president), contained a clause that said "any actions taken by the secretary under this bill are not review-able by the legislative branch nor are they contestable in any court of law."
President Bush demands that the legislative branch provides him with un-checked power and authority to dispose of $700 billion in the last few months of his administration? Sounds like nothing but a power grab to me.
GET requests in practice change stuff on the server. Making everything POSTs is just annoying - you get all those "click OK to resubmit form" messages and you don't even know what form it is.
... CSRF exploits are not the reason that GET requests shouldn't change anything on the server. Implement all of your secret one time link programs, but you'll be disappointed when someone using an 'internet accelerator' that pre-fetches pages comes by and illustrates the reason that GET ought to be separate from POST...
-Any taken-advantage-of borrower requires an even-more-taken-advantage-of lender. The borrower gets to walk away, at least having a gained some time in a home they shouldn't have moved into, while the lender suffers a huge loss. (Of course what actually happened here was the immediate lender, a broker, pocketed a huge gain and dumped it on other investors.)
I love how you gloss over this statement in parenthesis as if it's a minor point. The situation that occurred is that predatory lenders issued ARM mortgages to people that they knew would be unable to pay for them. Keep in mind, the issuing bank has a full financial report of the borrower's income, debts, and credit history. These bankers then offered deals such as "you can have a fixed rate mortgage, but you'll need a $10k down payment, but if you get an ARM, we can do it without a down payment!" I live in Tennessee, and by and far this state is not as hard hit as some others. One of the reasons is that we have protective lending laws. In this state, you cannot get a mortgage without a 10% (IIRC) down payment. That may seem unfair to those who cannot afford the down payment, but it's for their own good; if they can't afford the 10% down, odds are they cannot afford the mortgage, and a bank should be prevented from signing them into a contract they cannot afford to pay off.
Or, perhaps having this particular software on your computer could actually create the reasonable doubt you require to protect you?
Exactly. That's why I make it a policy to run an open wireless access point.
I'm a doctoral student in computer engineering, and have been playing with different methods of doing this for some time. Does your algorithm only used fixed rules, or are there elements of adaptive pattern recognition (neural networks, genetic algorithms) and of behavior adaption (reinforcement learning) involved?
I'd sincerely like to work with you on combining your approach with the one that I am producing for my dissertation. E-mail me at rcoop (at) utk (d0t) edu if you'd be interested in discussing different approaches and methods.
The only new thing here, which is truely shocking, is that the system is about minors, who have practically no means to exercise pressure on a governmental system.
Not shocking at all, really. You have to consider the goals of a system such as this... It obviously is tailored to contain any person who might become influential in changing the social or political order of things. As such, it's a natural extension of that to want to collect the data as early on in the life of these people as possible. The goal isn't to use the data to catch criminals, to monitor all the actions of everyone, or other nonsense; the goal is obviously to identify those that would change the social or political order so that those people can be politically assassinated (have all of their political or social influence negated) _before_ they actually change things.
I hope your wrong (especially since I'm about to become a grandad) but GW is just one of many signs that we are racing toward a global population crash of biblical proportions.
Even without indicators such as GW, anyone who cares to think about the situation the global population is in can clearly see that we're headed for a large die-off.
... , in essence we can support more life than before only because we have a source of fuel with a large net gain of energy. Fossil fuels artificially increase the Earth's 'carrying capacity' for human life. Looking in the indefinitely long-term future, fossil fuels are a limited quantity. Eventually, and the science isn't in yet with a reliable prediction of when, we will run out of these fuels. When that happens, the carrying capacity of Earth will go back to the normal level. We will no longer be able to produce food or to shelter as many people as before, and people will die until the population decreases enough.
If you look at the historical trend of global population growth you can see that the global population has exploded in the recent past. One major cause of this population growth is the use of fossil fuels; using fossil fuels it is possible to produce more energy burning the fuel than it takes to retrieve the fuel. This energy allows us to produce food further from where it is consumed, to power farm equipment and produce more food with less farmers, to heat more homes with less raw materials,
Looking at another potential cause of a large die-off, one needs to only look at population density. Population density and disease rates are directly related. An area with a dense population will support the spread of disease more easily. See 'the black plague' for an example of what happened when Europe's population density hit that level.
irregular behaviour, if it goes on long enough, becomes classified as regular behaviour... and is then undetected.
That assumes the system is set to continue learning when in the field. It is common practice in this area to train a system in the lab until it behaves in a desired way, and then remove the portion of the neural net or other NLP that learns, leaving just the classification part.
There's no simple set of visual/aural impulses to make us all universally freeze completely and lose awareness of the whole world.
Tell that to an epileptic person.
I'm aware that making corrections to people's posts causes everyone to immediately jump on your small errors, but actually writing "itensive purposes" is just irritating.
Actually, I believe the person wrote "intensive purposes".