I'd suggest using vi/vim instead of pico/nano for sysadmin editing... pico and nano hard-wrap your text, which can really mess up config files. Of course, you COULD use EMACS, but then hey... you could use ed too....
It seems to me, the best system would be:
Implement a standard CAPTCHA system, with fairly easy to read characters.
Then, for the challenge section, randomly select a prompt from the following (as an image, not plain text):
"Enter only the last letter of the captcha"
"Enter all the numbers included in the captcha"
"Enter all the letters included in the captcha"
"Enter the character from the captcha in reverse order"
"Enter all the vowels from the captcha"
"Enter all the consonants from the captcha"
"Enter the letter of the alphabet that follows the second letter shown in the captcha"
"Enter all the blue characters"
It seems to me that this would make the already-used captchas much harder to crack, as the bots would have to be able to recognize the captcha, locate the prompt graphic (which could be randomly inserted, along with "dummy" images), understand what the prompt is saying, and then apply its instructions to the captcha. Most humans should be able to do this (except maybe the consonant one, for people who never learned what a consonant is), but most computerized means that could do this would be more lucrative sold as commercial software than used to enter captchas on websites.
Instead there is this campaign to attack them messenger. I do realize this is the strong suit in the arguments, Don't counter the message, attack the messenger, "He is an evil troll". And "oh no, he didn't provide a link, I'm smart but not smart enough to do a google search and find a link on my own"
Problem #1: the only message I'm getting is yours; I can't trust anything you say others said, because you don't provide enough detail. You haven't provided much in the way of references for that detail. No problem -- I can generally dig that stuff up myself. However, in this case, I couldn't. Therefore, people are "attacking the messenger" because that's the only source provided. If you provided more than hearsay, people would be able to leave you alone and attack the data. There is no data, so they can't.
I didn't say you were evil, just trolling. To me, that includes starting a controversial thread while being too lazy to provide your own references, assuming others will find them for you. I do that from time to time myself, and try to make up for it by providing the links sometimes, like I tried to do here.
Climate change is a lot more complex than the media tries to make us believe. Climate change is unavoidable. The degree of climate change, however, is controllable. This is my opinion, not fact, and I'm not providing any links to back it up.
The point is, I was trying to back up your view, but was unable to find the actual articles mentioned. This surprised me, as I thought such results would be easy to find, and should be given more airtime on Slashdot. I did more than just a quick Google search; I actually looked for the hard copy reports, journals, and newspaper articles. For some reason, they don't appear to exist.
Notice, I wasn't saying "where's the link?" but "I can't find any corroborating evidence." I tried to do the footwork for you, and failed. Hopefully, something will turn up. Since you mentioned Nature, I guess my next step will be to trawl through the back catalogue and see if I can find a source in there. Do you have any suggestions as to which Canadian University I should try next? There aren't that many with a climatology department, so with some guidance in the right direction, I should be able to pinpoint the actual study findings.
OK, I started out by trying to find a link to the "Canadian Study". I checked for study releases at Canadian Universities from coast to coast, including Dalhousie, U. Waterloo, USask, U Alberta, UBC, SFU. I also did a Google search on the keywords "GHG" and "Proxy". I checked Canadian papers (including the liberal and eco-friendly ones).
Guess what I found?
Zip.
The only mention of GHG and Proxy in the same breath comes out of Stanford, which is NOT a Canadian university.
I think a number of you are misinterpreting what the GP was trying to say with the "who reported it first" thing...
These days, often one news agency will report something, and everyone else will just grab their article, pull what meager facts there are from it, add some editorialization, and re-publish. With Google News, you can tell who was the original author of any specific version of the news, which does often help in understanding what's actually going on.
Example: Microsoft publishes an article "Microsoft is the best company in the world" with the body explaining how executives at Microsoft get better benefits packages than any other company. They submit it to Business Wire or some such.
Next thing you know, other news agencies are publishing similar stories, but saying that sources claim that in a recent study, MS employees enjoy their jobs more than other similar employees at competing software firms. Quotes are taken from the first article about executives saying how they like their benefits packages.
Due to the way Google News works, it becomes obvious that the second batch of articles just borrowed from the first article. It doesn't matter whether Forbes goes and publishes an interview on the same topic the next day; we're following the cut&paste news reporting here, not the actual "use your own sources" reporting.
For those prices you can buy a PDA and use it to control everything -- including programming in all sorts of smart macros. Any remote that costs more than $80 had better be able to do a lot more than send/receive IR/Radio signals.
What they're talking about doing is something like revoking your driver's license because you might be involved in accident.
Actually, it's more like revoking your driver's license and impounding your car because someone saw you buy fertilizer, which could be used for terrorist or drug-related purposes.
I'm sorry, but your reply might be considered copyright infringement in some countries. Are you prepared to be deported to one of these countries for a criminal theft trial?
Saying that you live in the US and other laws don't apply to you won't hold up. After all, if an Australian can be estradited to the US for breaking US copyright law (but not Australian copyright law), why can't you be extradited to, say, Cuba for writing something readable in their country that looks awfully similar to something one of their citizens wrote?
Copyright is not theft. The theft (if there is one... there likely wasn't in the case we're discussing) would be under "theft of sale" doctrine, which is a separate matter from copyright infringement, and NOT criminal (yes, theft is a crime).
"Common Sense" is often a label for social norms. This works well in countries where most people have a strong cultural background within the country and exposure to cultures outside their own. The problem is that, on the one hand, the US is a country made up of immigrants -- everyone has different social norms. On the other hand, the American "melting pot" social concept tends to breed an insular social outlook -- everyone assumes that everyone else's "common sense" is the same as theirs.
There are a lot of things (like, you know dry wood burns, you know a forest is made up of dry wood, don't drop a lit cigarette in the forest if you don't want it to burn) that are based on logic, but because of the warring social assumptions, it is easy to overlook the obvious while attempting to navigate the multitude of treacherous (I can't smoke my cigarette around my parents, I have to smoke to be accepted by my peers... why not do it in those secluded woods where nobody but my friends will find out) "social sense" rules.
Hmm... sort of like the "Character Encoding" setting in web browsers. Not a bad idea.
However, I have a feeling that IVR systems will probably also have a prompt saying "Please state the language you wish to use" in a number of languages, and change based on the person's answer.
Hmm... I think the only way to prevent all crime is to abolish criminality. LIkewise, the only way to abolish all computer security breaches is to do away with security. Then nothing can be breached:)
Seriously though, both criminals and "security breachers" operate by attempting personal gain through avenues outside the culturally accepted norm. There will always be such people -- a lot of the biggest "innovators" throughout history were such people.
Personally, I think the only way to do away with the security industry is to do away with the concept of personal privacy. If there is no privacy, then everyone will know who is messing with your system, which might make them think twice about attempting it. Same goes for criminal acts. The security industry is there to prop up privacy.
The iPhone is based on OS X Leopard... which, at its core, passes data between apps and the OS (including UI) using Apple Events... which Apple has used for voice control on desktop systems for around 13 years. I strongly believe that Apple can achieve that level with the iPhone, too. They just have to write a few custom scripts aimed at the iPhone apps.
2. Forced me to start using a PIN in addition to my login credentials ...
4. Forced me to pick a username and start using that instead of my USAA number
Actually, it isn't visible to the end user, but these two security precautions actually DO protect you. They don't protect you from phishing scams, but they DO protect you from database divers. You see, under the old system, you are sending your account number over the internet, it is being stored in various locations (your web browser's cache possibly, and definitely the transaction database on the other end). What the bank is doing is making sure that the database that contains your truely personal information is not exposed to the internet -- it is only exposed to another data system that has limited access rights.
Similarly, the PIN is to protect your online identity -- anyone can guess your login credentials, but it is much more difficult (without phishing or database mining) to figure out BOTH your login credentials and your PIN.
In a nutshell, if someone figures out your USAA number, you (possibly) need to close your bank account. If they figure out your username, they also need your PIN. If they have both, they still don't have your account number (unless your bank is silly enough to display the entire number once you log in). Plus, your account name and PIN can be changed regularly, and can be revoked without closing your bank account.
There were some jackasses on here who justified illegitimate satellite receivers on the grounds that the "damn stuff is broadcast over my property" as if somehow the satellite company could change the laws of physics.
This is called "choosing your distribution stream". They knew they were broadcasting the data when they sent up the satellite and began using it to dump data into the ether. The electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource; for most parts of the bandwidth, people can do what they see fit with the radiation they can detect. Certain interests (Military, TV, Phone) have legislated themselves protected ranges in this resource creating an artificial monopoly in swaths of a public limited resource.
A receiver isn't illegitimate; however, the sale of such units is in some places, and some places have laws stating that you can't infringe the IP of the company who made the reference design (the broadcaster).
Just saying that it wasn't only the jackasses who were arguing along these lines. I agree with them to a degree, even though I'd never do this myself as I believe in reciprocity. If their signals ever start degrading MY signals though, you bet I'd use their signals however I saw fit.
The OLPC laptops contain a bunch of hardware invented specifically for them, correct?
Countries have standards bodies like the FCC and others that regulate a LOT about how such devices can perform. My guess is that the OLPC wouldn't pass all these tests. Sell to governments only, and you don't have to worry about this, as the standards bodies are a part of the group doing the purchasing. Selling on the open market is another story.
The $200 devices probably use standard parts wherever possible, as these parts have already been approved by the various regulatory bodies.
A smarter and better option is to increase R & D into renewable energy.
You'd better watch this one... you'll have some entrepreneurs leveling the Rockies to grow Corn for Bio-diesel because of the "green" funding from the government;)
Exactly. If this system ever comes online then hijackers will simply plan and figure out a way to disable the system. Its easier said than done, and probably very costly, but if you get the right hackers you can break into (almost) any system.
Funny... I'd think that terrorists would LOVE such a system... don't disable it, just co-opt it! You don't even need to be ON the plane to crash it into a target. If the system is hardwired (let's say it has pre-plotted landing locations, and picks the closest one based on GPRS signal), then there are numerous choices: 1) change out the module, 2) disable as mentioned above, 3) screw up the GPRS detection or transmission somehow. I'm sure there are other means I haven't mentioned.
Many countries, states, provinces, etc. have data retention policies; check and see if he is actually doing anything illegal in your locale. If he is, email him a URL to the appropriate laws with a line saying something like, "Hey! I just discovered this, and I thought you should know about it." Inoffensive, and you've covered yourself by letting someone higher up know about it. If you don't have any laws governing such data, I'd go with the emailing him that it would probably be a good idea to get audited. After that, it's no longer your problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd suggest using vi/vim instead of pico/nano for sysadmin editing... pico and nano hard-wrap your text, which can really mess up config files. Of course, you COULD use EMACS, but then hey... you could use ed too....
Implement a standard CAPTCHA system, with fairly easy to read characters.
Then, for the challenge section, randomly select a prompt from the following (as an image, not plain text):
"Enter only the last letter of the captcha"
"Enter all the numbers included in the captcha"
"Enter all the letters included in the captcha"
"Enter the character from the captcha in reverse order"
"Enter all the vowels from the captcha"
"Enter all the consonants from the captcha"
"Enter the letter of the alphabet that follows the second letter shown in the captcha"
"Enter all the blue characters"
It seems to me that this would make the already-used captchas much harder to crack, as the bots would have to be able to recognize the captcha, locate the prompt graphic (which could be randomly inserted, along with "dummy" images), understand what the prompt is saying, and then apply its instructions to the captcha. Most humans should be able to do this (except maybe the consonant one, for people who never learned what a consonant is), but most computerized means that could do this would be more lucrative sold as commercial software than used to enter captchas on websites.
http://roamnomore.blogspot.com/2005/08/climate-ch
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153
By the way, which little god of mine are you talking about? The one Nietzsche "killed"?
I didn't say you were evil, just trolling. To me, that includes starting a controversial thread while being too lazy to provide your own references, assuming others will find them for you. I do that from time to time myself, and try to make up for it by providing the links sometimes, like I tried to do here.
Climate change is a lot more complex than the media tries to make us believe. Climate change is unavoidable. The degree of climate change, however, is controllable. This is my opinion, not fact, and I'm not providing any links to back it up.
The point is, I was trying to back up your view, but was unable to find the actual articles mentioned. This surprised me, as I thought such results would be easy to find, and should be given more airtime on Slashdot. I did more than just a quick Google search; I actually looked for the hard copy reports, journals, and newspaper articles. For some reason, they don't appear to exist.
Notice, I wasn't saying "where's the link?" but "I can't find any corroborating evidence." I tried to do the footwork for you, and failed. Hopefully, something will turn up. Since you mentioned Nature, I guess my next step will be to trawl through the back catalogue and see if I can find a source in there. Do you have any suggestions as to which Canadian University I should try next? There aren't that many with a climatology department, so with some guidance in the right direction, I should be able to pinpoint the actual study findings.
Guess what I found?
Zip.
The only mention of GHG and Proxy in the same breath comes out of Stanford, which is NOT a Canadian university.
I suspect the parent is trolling.
Example: Microsoft publishes an article "Microsoft is the best company in the world" with the body explaining how executives at Microsoft get better benefits packages than any other company. They submit it to Business Wire or some such.
Next thing you know, other news agencies are publishing similar stories, but saying that sources claim that in a recent study, MS employees enjoy their jobs more than other similar employees at competing software firms. Quotes are taken from the first article about executives saying how they like their benefits packages.
Due to the way Google News works, it becomes obvious that the second batch of articles just borrowed from the first article. It doesn't matter whether Forbes goes and publishes an interview on the same topic the next day; we're following the cut&paste news reporting here, not the actual "use your own sources" reporting.
For those prices you can buy a PDA and use it to control everything -- including programming in all sorts of smart macros. Any remote that costs more than $80 had better be able to do a lot more than send/receive IR/Radio signals.
Saying that you live in the US and other laws don't apply to you won't hold up. After all, if an Australian can be estradited to the US for breaking US copyright law (but not Australian copyright law), why can't you be extradited to, say, Cuba for writing something readable in their country that looks awfully similar to something one of their citizens wrote?
Copyright is not theft. The theft (if there is one... there likely wasn't in the case we're discussing) would be under "theft of sale" doctrine, which is a separate matter from copyright infringement, and NOT criminal (yes, theft is a crime).
There are a lot of things (like, you know dry wood burns, you know a forest is made up of dry wood, don't drop a lit cigarette in the forest if you don't want it to burn) that are based on logic, but because of the warring social assumptions, it is easy to overlook the obvious while attempting to navigate the multitude of treacherous (I can't smoke my cigarette around my parents, I have to smoke to be accepted by my peers... why not do it in those secluded woods where nobody but my friends will find out) "social sense" rules.
However, I have a feeling that IVR systems will probably also have a prompt saying "Please state the language you wish to use" in a number of languages, and change based on the person's answer.
I always found that NO was a memory hog. Feed it enough memory, and it runs pretty well.
Seriously though, both criminals and "security breachers" operate by attempting personal gain through avenues outside the culturally accepted norm. There will always be such people -- a lot of the biggest "innovators" throughout history were such people.
Personally, I think the only way to do away with the security industry is to do away with the concept of personal privacy. If there is no privacy, then everyone will know who is messing with your system, which might make them think twice about attempting it. Same goes for criminal acts. The security industry is there to prop up privacy.
The iPhone is based on OS X Leopard... which, at its core, passes data between apps and the OS (including UI) using Apple Events... which Apple has used for voice control on desktop systems for around 13 years. I strongly believe that Apple can achieve that level with the iPhone, too. They just have to write a few custom scripts aimed at the iPhone apps.
Similarly, the PIN is to protect your online identity -- anyone can guess your login credentials, but it is much more difficult (without phishing or database mining) to figure out BOTH your login credentials and your PIN.
In a nutshell, if someone figures out your USAA number, you (possibly) need to close your bank account. If they figure out your username, they also need your PIN. If they have both, they still don't have your account number (unless your bank is silly enough to display the entire number once you log in). Plus, your account name and PIN can be changed regularly, and can be revoked without closing your bank account.
Personally, I believe they should give away their content, just like terrestrial broadcasters do -- by padding desired content with pre-paid content.
A receiver isn't illegitimate; however, the sale of such units is in some places, and some places have laws stating that you can't infringe the IP of the company who made the reference design (the broadcaster).
Just saying that it wasn't only the jackasses who were arguing along these lines. I agree with them to a degree, even though I'd never do this myself as I believe in reciprocity. If their signals ever start degrading MY signals though, you bet I'd use their signals however I saw fit.
The OLPC laptops contain a bunch of hardware invented specifically for them, correct?
Countries have standards bodies like the FCC and others that regulate a LOT about how such devices can perform. My guess is that the OLPC wouldn't pass all these tests. Sell to governments only, and you don't have to worry about this, as the standards bodies are a part of the group doing the purchasing. Selling on the open market is another story.
The $200 devices probably use standard parts wherever possible, as these parts have already been approved by the various regulatory bodies.
Many countries, states, provinces, etc. have data retention policies; check and see if he is actually doing anything illegal in your locale. If he is, email him a URL to the appropriate laws with a line saying something like, "Hey! I just discovered this, and I thought you should know about it." Inoffensive, and you've covered yourself by letting someone higher up know about it. If you don't have any laws governing such data, I'd go with the emailing him that it would probably be a good idea to get audited. After that, it's no longer your problem.