This reminds me of a story from a while back about HP's technology to blur faces in digital cameras... provided by HP and specifically designed to accept this crippling instruction. If only specially equipped DVD players require this new level of authentication, why buy a specially equipped DVD player? (The possibility of this `special equipment' being required by law seems small (though maybe I'm being overly optimistic). If the broadcast flag was overturned, surely this can be too?)
Microsoft is developing enhanced search software that combines navigation for Web and desktop files straight from the operating system.
Great. Because, my biggest complaint about Microsoft is that the Web browsing isn't tightly integrated enough with the operating system yet. Now the innards of my computer can be thrown open to exploits like never before!
P.S. Sorry. I forgot that Microsoft is now committed to security.
How about damn near every holocaust museum which ignores those killed which weren't jewish? Or ignores those who put forth the effort to end the holocaust?
Sorry, I've studied history, and I have in-laws who were in those camps. The trivialization isn't from comparing it to an office suite.
(Another entry in the more-perspective-than-thou contest.) The biases you describe are both unfortunate and embedded, and they do constitute, to some extent, a trivialisation of the people you mention. However -- surely we can agree, however much we deplore this focus, that comparing the death of an office suite to the death of any people, Jewish or otherwise, is, in fact, trivialisation?
Here's the Cluebat[TM] for that generation of kids, and for you: if it's enclosed within the boundaries of a TV screen, it's not reality.
Really? It's as simple as that, eh? So, Waco wasn't real? Ruby Ridge wasn't real? The Oklahoma City bombing, September 11th, the Iraq war, Somalia, the Bank of America robbery/shootout in North Hollywood, BTK, the Washington snipers - all not real?
Here's a better guide: If it's enclosed within the boundaries of a TV screen, it's not reality. Unless it's a news program, in which case it's reality. Unless it's Fox News, in which case it's not reality.
I understand you, as a math major, had higher expectations for the show, but what's the point of making a show that only 0.1% of the population can even follow, let alone want to watch? Maybe you work on equations all day and want to come home and see it mixed in with your police dramas, but I doubt many people do. Still, I find their characterizations and science to be reasonable, maybe a little sophomoric but much better than most of the fluff out there.
This seems like a misreading of the point. Of course, it's true that, if you want verisimilitude, you can just walk into a math department, point the camera and record; and it's also true that not many people would want to see that (except possibly as a `the office'-type horror). However, there is a middle ground between making something dry-as-toast accurate and 3-plus-2-is-6 inaccurate; you can make sure you're factually accurate while also crafting the show so that it can appeal to the masses, not just to the people who can check the facts. For example, I assume you'd never suggest that, in LotR, the dialogue in Elvish should have been gibberish (for all I know it was, so no points for anyone who corrects me), even though only the most die-hard fans would notice the difference. Having it correct pleases those who can tell and does no harm to those who can't.
So you are calling our troops Germans? or Italians? Or Japanese? Last I checked those are the only countries that have a proven record of genocidal agression.
AC claimed our troops are genocidal cowards.
You claim that only Germans, Italians and Japanese have been genocidal aggressors. (Let's be charitable and avoid discussing the possible difference between a genocidal coward and a genocidal aggressor, or on the truth or falsity of this statement.)
Therefore, AC claimed our troops are Germans, Italians or Japanese.
It's been a while since my logic class, but that looks about right to me.
then surely it won't pose any additional problem for him to choose the correct graphical option
Not if the choices and locations of those choices are randomly changed every time you attempt to log in.
Right, but the point is, if you can choose the correct option using your personal information, so can the phisher -- because he now has the personal information. He isn't limited to imitating your choice.
Maybe it's over the top, but couldn't you have a program which accepted some seed and then acted as an intermediary between what you type and what the password field sees, scrambling text appropriately? I guess you run into the problem of entering the seed out of sight of the keylogger, but maybe it could be something mouse-based (though, as others have mentioned, presumably mouse motion can be logged too). The final result would even be opaque to screencaptures, since you usually can't see what you're entering in a password field.
When using online banking (or anything online really), once you have entered your login correctly, the site displays a graphical challenge derived from one of your personal details, such as address, phone, birthday etc., and you use your mouse to choose the correct one and proceed.
I guess I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this would work -- even setting aside what others have mentioned, that mouse movement can probably be logged, too. If a phisher has your personal information already (from the keylogger), then surely it won't pose any additional problem for him to choose the correct graphical option?
Is it just me, or is the author none-too-subtly suggesting at the end of what seems a pretty flattering article that the one who engineered the defence is in collusion with the exortionists, and that paying him for help is essentially paying a protection fee? The turnabout in tone is so abrupt it seems like the last few paragraphs were written by a different person.
For example if a store refused to accept a return even though it was allowed by their policies, I could take then to small claims court. I could also, morally speaking, just give them the item back without getting a refund, then turn around and rip them off for the same amount.
According to what moral system? Unless you announce that you are going to do so, and unless you are willing to accept the consequences -- that is, unless you are truly making a point of principle as opposed to just trying to maintain the value of the goods you own and want at a constant level -- then what moral defence is there for stealing? (This is setting aside the issue of whether or not copying is stealing. What you are proposing really is stealing, by any definition.)
The reason the US has guns is so that its citizents can break unjust laws and defent themselves from an unreasonable government.
That's the reason the US had guns, 200 years ago. The reason it has them today is that the NRA is a powerful voting bloc and they need assault rifles to hunt deer.
I know it's bad form to reply to one's own comment, but my cynicism came off as unduly sincere. I did not mean that there is no longer any need to break unjust laws and defend oneself from an unreasonable government. Certainly one needs to do both, though I'm not sure that having guns is the way to do it. Anyway, this may be why individual citizens have guns, but the U.S. as a country has guns at the will of its government, which, I think, is not interested in the idea of being opposed by armed rebels.
To the poster who questioned my knowledge of gun terminology, you are right, and I don't have the faintest idea what an `assault rifle' is, though I thought it was a legitimate term. My recent knowledge of the subject comes from this most reliable of news sources, which uses the probably more apt `.50 caliber sniper rifle'.
The reason the US has guns is so that its citizents can break unjust laws and defent themselves from an unreasonable government.
That's the reason the US had guns, 200 years ago. The reason it has them today is that the NRA is a powerful voting bloc and they need assault rifles to hunt deer.
Without a military, it's hard to have peace when people invade your country.
With a military, you don't have peace when people invade your country, you have war. Peace will come eventually after the war, but you'd have peace of one sort or another anyway without a military, too.
There will never be peace, nor should there be.
Wow.
Wait a minute, though. If having a military creates peace, and there should never be peace, then shouldn't we disband the military?
Perhaps not immediately, but within a few years a system will exist which will allow the streaming of any movie ever made via broadband instantly. Why would you want to bother keeping an anachronistic collection of shiny discs, when you could have anything you want, instantly.
Because, as we've seen, the trend in streaming media is towards temporary ownership. Sure, with DVDs, my ownership options are (supposed to be) limited -- I can't copy it, &c. -- but at least I have it forever (or at least as long as the media lasts). I'm sure still more restrictions will be in place with these new discs, but, judging from the previous market failure of `temporary discs', at least I will still have them forever.
With streaming media, it seems likely that we'd see a `pay-per-view' set-up. Besides that, what about out-of-print movies? If I buy a DVD and the manufacturer stops printing those DVDs, I can still watch it -- but what if I want to stream a DVD no one wants to host? We could lose a lot of important movies this way.
The term is
per se. It's Latin.
CSS 2 isn't ahead of it's time.... ... as long as web developers don't use any of it's more esoteric features....
Probably, if your knowledge of English were as thorough as your language of Latin, you would use `it's' only to mean `it is', rather than the possessive of `it'.
I have never, not once, felt the slightest guilt about blocking every graphical ad on which I can get my hands. If nothing else, when I was on dial-up, it was practically a necessity to load popular sites some time that day. As many people have mentioned, I find text ads inoffensive and, though I know there are ways to do so, I won't take the time to try to block them. What worries me, though, is that we'll eventually find pop-up- and ad-blockers falling into the same category as penicillin -- miracle cures that, through overuse, become ineffective. What virulent new method of delivery will the advertisers find next? (We've already seen the introduction of PIE to get around cookie-deleting.)
... have added eating out and traveling out of town which are lots of fun especially with a friend, and require no signing of digital signatures to do it.
That was a wonderful post. My only objection is to this last line, which, if you want to go out of the country, even in the Americas, will probably cease to be true soon. `Look, technology!' say those in power (governments and corporations, with whatever containment relationship between them you want to assert). `Whom can we fuck with it?'
Be it enacted..That the ground to be appropriated to the purpose of building thereon a capitol..shall be located on Shockoe hill.
Said insurance company shall be located and kept in the town of Salem
Surely, if it is possible that something shall be located in, on or at a place, it is possible that that thing is located in, on or at a place. The statement in question, it seems to me, is that the document has its location at the indicated site (which is happening in the present), not that it was placed there (which happened in the past).
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of a story from a while back about HP's technology to blur faces in digital cameras ... provided by HP and specifically designed to accept this crippling instruction. If only specially equipped DVD players require this new level of authentication, why buy a specially equipped DVD player? (The possibility of this `special equipment' being required by law seems small (though maybe I'm being overly optimistic). If the broadcast flag was overturned, surely this can be too?)
P.S. Sorry. I forgot that Microsoft is now committed to security.
- AC claimed our troops are genocidal cowards.
- You claim that only Germans, Italians and Japanese have been genocidal aggressors. (Let's be charitable and avoid discussing the possible difference between a genocidal coward and a genocidal aggressor, or on the truth or falsity of this statement.)
- Therefore, AC claimed our troops are Germans, Italians or Japanese.
It's been a while since my logic class, but that looks about right to me.Maybe it's over the top, but couldn't you have a program which accepted some seed and then acted as an intermediary between what you type and what the password field sees, scrambling text appropriately? I guess you run into the problem of entering the seed out of sight of the keylogger, but maybe it could be something mouse-based (though, as others have mentioned, presumably mouse motion can be logged too). The final result would even be opaque to screencaptures, since you usually can't see what you're entering in a password field.
Is it just me, or is the author none-too-subtly suggesting at the end of what seems a pretty flattering article that the one who engineered the defence is in collusion with the exortionists, and that paying him for help is essentially paying a protection fee? The turnabout in tone is so abrupt it seems like the last few paragraphs were written by a different person.
To the poster who questioned my knowledge of gun terminology, you are right, and I don't have the faintest idea what an `assault rifle' is, though I thought it was a legitimate term. My recent knowledge of the subject comes from this most reliable of news sources, which uses the probably more apt `.50 caliber sniper rifle'.
Bizarre because
* Sorry for that image.
Wait a minute, though. If having a military creates peace, and there should never be peace, then shouldn't we disband the military?
With streaming media, it seems likely that we'd see a `pay-per-view' set-up. Besides that, what about out-of-print movies? If I buy a DVD and the manufacturer stops printing those DVDs, I can still watch it -- but what if I want to stream a DVD no one wants to host? We could lose a lot of important movies this way.
I have never, not once, felt the slightest guilt about blocking every graphical ad on which I can get my hands. If nothing else, when I was on dial-up, it was practically a necessity to load popular sites some time that day. As many people have mentioned, I find text ads inoffensive and, though I know there are ways to do so, I won't take the time to try to block them. What worries me, though, is that we'll eventually find pop-up- and ad-blockers falling into the same category as penicillin -- miracle cures that, through overuse, become ineffective. What virulent new method of delivery will the advertisers find next? (We've already seen the introduction of PIE to get around cookie-deleting.)
That was a wonderful post. My only objection is to this last line, which, if you want to go out of the country, even in the Americas, will probably cease to be true soon. `Look, technology!' say those in power (governments and corporations, with whatever containment relationship between them you want to assert). `Whom can we fuck with it?'