I would imagine it's called automatic depth-of-field bracketing. I've not seen it. I guess to be useful such a feature would also bracket the nominal focus distance itself to keep the subject sharp while fully maximizing DoF? Can you remember where you saw it?
I am aware of the auto-bracketing feature that causes your camera to shoot three "equivalent" exposures (with different depth of field.)
Actually, I don't think you properly are. What you describe is not what auto-bracketing does. That said, you're right that auto-bracketing is different from multiple exposures.
Actually, no, they don't pay for it. The merchants that were defrauded pay for it
You're right that banks don't directly cover the costs of all fraudulent transactions. In some cases (usually "card not present" transactions), it's the merchants. But to say that banks aren't paying for credit card fraud is just wrong.
I work in the anti-phishing industry, and suggestions like the article makes are pie in the sky "corporations have magic powers" crap
No, they're not. They're "give the problems to those with the money, sense and incentives to fix it" arguments. Makes excellent sense to me. My guess would be that you're either (a) too wrapped up in the "anti-phishing industry" to step back and wonder why we need such an industry; (b) invested too heavily in the "anti-phishing industry" to accept that it may not be needed; or (c) just not amenable to lateral thinking.
Seriously. Look at credit-card fraud. Do banks pay for this? Hell, yeah. Is there a cottage industry? Perhaps, but banks are EXTREMELY motivated to fix the problem, since it's costing them daily. Where five years ago was that CVV code on the back of your credit card? Where was "Verified by Visa"? These are industry programs introduced by the industry to reduce fraud. Why? Because it costs them.
Make phishing cost the industry, and you betcha they'll be right on it. And as far as I can tell, they wouldn't have to do much to top the efforts of the "anti-phishing industry" to date.
I'd guess that they must be using a certain wavelength of IR, and detecting the magnesium flouride that is often used an an antireflective coating on lenses
From the project page, "By out-fitting a camera with a ring of IR-LEDs and an IR pass filter, we are able to detect the retro-reflection caused by CCD imaging chips". Not the lenses.
Not only does this behavior violate the RFCs that govern the Web and Internet e-mail, but authors of malicious programs for Windows have managed to exploit this misbehavior.
I think we pay ~$150 per person for an annual MSDN Universal subscription.
I doubt it. MSDN Universal subscriptions cost $2,799 per developer seat. Still very good value if you develop using MS technologies (I had one for a number of years), but a little more than $150.
If I buy anything online, be it music, videos or whatever, I
buy it, it's mine
Yes, very good. But I thought we were talking not about stuff that you bought, but stuff that you licensed and downloaded with DRM.
Once again, I think you're missing the point. Stuff that's yours you can indeed do what you want with. Stuff you download with DRM isn't yours, and you can't. That's kinda what DRM is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't believe you got modded troll for this. As far as I can tell this is exactly the situation.
No, 25 has three distinct factors: 1, 5 and 25.
It's a Britishism. Some examples.
I would imagine it's called automatic depth-of-field bracketing. I've not seen it. I guess to be useful such a feature would also bracket the nominal focus distance itself to keep the subject sharp while fully maximizing DoF? Can you remember where you saw it?
Actually, I don't think you properly are. What you describe is not what auto-bracketing does. That said, you're right that auto-bracketing is different from multiple exposures.
Huh? Is one supposed to be more desirable than the other? Both seem distinct to me from "fair".
Says, uh, "soft_guy".
And yet, magically, Word 2007 uses only 135 vertical pixels for UI versus Word 2003's 140.
I suggest you inform yourself about what is being discussed. I don't think you know what you think you know.
You can do this on Google Calendar. Select using the dropdown to repeat "Every week" and then check the checkboxes for Monday and Wednesday.
None of Google Talk, MSN Messenger or iChat use SIP.
And you conclude that from those buggy BNFs you linked to? Or something else?
The import statement BNF you linked to gives the OK to
but notNice.
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with your assertion about language complexity, but linking to crap like that isn't going to bolster your case.
And the exact same vulnerability exists/existed in WINE.
Yay open source!
All you seem to be saying is "Java isn't suitable for all projects". I don't think that's surpirsing, news, or in dispute.
Because unplanned downtime is more expensive than planned downtime. It's the breaking-unexpectedly that's expensive.
Huh? Companies pay for productivity. Lack of productivity == wasted money. That *is* the cost-saving.
You're right that banks don't directly cover the costs of all fraudulent transactions. In some cases (usually "card not present" transactions), it's the merchants. But to say that banks aren't paying for credit card fraud is just wrong.
Bank and credit card fraud rose 20% last year, costing British banks £505m
[US] Banks lost $788 million to credit-card fraud in 2004. And $822 million in 2003.
This is an expensive problem for banks; they have large incentives to solve it.
No, they're not. They're "give the problems to those with the money, sense and incentives to fix it" arguments. Makes excellent sense to me. My guess would be that you're either (a) too wrapped up in the "anti-phishing industry" to step back and wonder why we need such an industry; (b) invested too heavily in the "anti-phishing industry" to accept that it may not be needed; or (c) just not amenable to lateral thinking.
Seriously. Look at credit-card fraud. Do banks pay for this? Hell, yeah. Is there a cottage industry? Perhaps, but banks are EXTREMELY motivated to fix the problem, since it's costing them daily. Where five years ago was that CVV code on the back of your credit card? Where was "Verified by Visa"? These are industry programs introduced by the industry to reduce fraud. Why? Because it costs them.
Make phishing cost the industry, and you betcha they'll be right on it. And as far as I can tell, they wouldn't have to do much to top the efforts of the "anti-phishing industry" to date.
And this is exactly what Deskzilla does. It's very neat.
There are some here
It doesn't, but a neat workaround is using pushd and popd.
Maps a temporary drive and changes the current directory.
not only changes the directory back, but unmaps the drive.
From the project page, "By out-fitting a camera with a ring of IR-LEDs and an IR pass filter, we are able to detect the retro-reflection caused by CCD imaging chips". Not the lenses.
I didn't see anything in those two exploits about "guessing a Content-type based on the last few characters of the URL".
Am I missing something?
For example?
I doubt it. MSDN Universal subscriptions cost $2,799 per developer seat. Still very good value if you develop using MS technologies (I had one for a number of years), but a little more than $150.
Yes, very good. But I thought we were talking not about stuff that you bought, but stuff that you licensed and downloaded with DRM.
Once again, I think you're missing the point. Stuff that's yours you can indeed do what you want with. Stuff you download with DRM isn't yours, and you can't. That's kinda what DRM is all about.
I think you're missing the point of DRM. You can still do what you want with your data; it's other people's data that DRM manages your access to.