Police : Why does that car return no signature even though it's right in front of me ? Better stop them and find out.
That's not how most cops use their radar guns. They set them to alarm at a certain threshold, point them down the road and then take a snooze until the alarm goes off.
Every ALL of those statues that you quoted contained almost identical language saying:
However, no person charged with a violation of the provisions of this section shall be convicted if a driver's license issued to the person and valid at the time of his arrest is produced in court.
I mean COME ON dude, it is not a crime if you can't be convicted of it.
A layer of obscurity over a secure system can seem good, but is unnecessary (because you have a secure system already).
That is false. No system is 100% secure, all that can be expected is to delay a successful attack. The more secure, the longer the delay.
Understood from that context, an additional layer of obscurity does increase security. The question really boils down to the cost-effectiveness of that layer - if maintaining that layer creates excessive overhead, then it may be a net loss in the cost/benefit trade-off column. But if cost is not part of the evaluation - and the prior poster never mentioned it - then it is true to say that obscurity always increases security.
What about all the similar crap that goes on with other devices? iPhone, XBOX, Wii, NDS, plus loads others?! EFF, why aren't you defending user's rights there?
They issued a press release about the calculators. They have done way more than that for the iphone and ipod - http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2009/7/23 They supported the "Hacking the Xbox" book by using it as a prize for people who donated to the EFF.
And dont be so droll as to think that cops are going to be pinning crimes on John Q Innocent because he matches 80%...they are going to investigate just as they would any other crime.
Personally, I am for a national ID system - and a national ID card. Verify social security numbers and biometric data (and even DNA) - and unless govt screws the pooch - identity theft is a thing of the past. Mistaken identity is a thing of the past. Illegal aliens using false ID is a thing of the past.
That's the same kind of thing people say all the time about new, unimplemented technologies - but real life never works out that way. At the very best, all that will be accomplished is that most peope who circumvent the current system will figure out a way to circumvent the new system.
Think of the logistics of what you are proposing and all of the places in the chain where it can be compromised - at the point of scanning you to put into the database,at the point of scanning you to compare to the database, etc. You have seen GATTACA right? Even their system wasn't fool-proof and it was uber-big-brother - if this country ever gets to that level of big-brother, national-id or not, we are all kinds of screwed - so you can count on any such system being even more flawed than the one in GATTACA.
Yea, right. I'm half Pacific Islander, I don't think my three facial hairs will do much good.
Then try putting cotton balls beneath your lower lip and up each nostril before getting your DMV picture taken. That might distort the geometry of your chin and nose enough to make this system totally worthless and not be terribly obvious to the person taking the picture - worst case, just tell them you have a cold.
Carrying a license is obviously required when engaged in the relevant activity (driving, hunting, selling alcohol, etc.)
That is a common misconception too. Owning such a license is required, but in most states (probably all of them) there is no law that requires you to carry your drivers license when actually driving. It makes life harder if you get detained, but it is not a crime.
f I upload something to MySpace.. that's -me- sending data -to- them; typically after setting up an account, agreeing to a bunch of legalese, etc.
Rupert Murdoch's websites aren't submitting articles to Google News. Google News simply takes them (as part of the generic GoogleBot*), and republishes snippets.
The only difference is who writes the contract, aka the 'legalese.' All contracts are binding on BOTH parties - so MySpace has the 'upper hand' and gets to dictate the terms under which artists put stuff on MySpace. With Google News, it is Google who has the upper hand and gets to dictate the terms under which Murdoch puts stuff on Google. In both cases, all parties agree to a contract, and all parties are free to walk away from it if they don't like the terms.
'The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content,
Considering that Murdoch owns MySpace and markets it to artists as a place where independents, and even established artists, can show their wares - in effect aggregating boatloads of content that is not his in the first place - the irony of his whining is almost too much to bear.
Unless you have one of those "favorites" things in your cell plan, where you have unlimited calls to 5 numbers (or whatever).
I thought everybody knew about those promotions, that's why I said, "...unless the cellphone service independently allows free phone calls." It still isn't google giving you the call for free, it is the cell phone provider choosing not to charge you by the minute for those calls (you still must pay the monthly fee).
Unfortunately the article doesn't mention what exactly makes the $700k. I'm not into mainframes, maybe someone else has details on what makes mainframe maintenance so costly?
It's the 99.999% uptime that is a typical requirement of mainframe apps. That means things like remote monitoring by the vendor via a direct link to the system so that the diagnostic subsystem can tell the vendor that parts are failing before they fail and then the vendor will usually have a 4 hour or less requirement to get new parts on site, the logistics of which are a lot more expensive than they appear at first glance (gotta have local hardware depots with enough spare parts to cover all contingencies, including multiple simultaneous failures at multiple sites at different side of the city, etc). Then there is the cost of the human expertise - mainframe customers expect 1st-line support to be one level away from engineering - absolutely no scripted phone support weenies. The on-site hardware techs are also a couple of orders above the typical vendor hardware tech who is frequently a jack-of-all-trades and master of none - the mainframe guys are dedicated to mainframe support and are typically on a first-name basis with the engineers who designed the hardware.
So in summary - extremely rapid response plus top-flight human talent equals big bucks.
The article did say that the mainframe was old and thus support costs were even higher which is common - as hardware is obsoleted it becomes more and more expensive to stock replacement parts (and engineering staff). So maybe they could shave a hundred grand or two off that price if they were using a mainframe that had not been end-of-lifed a while ago.
$700K/yr for software support and hardware maintenance isn't really out of line for a high-capacity system with 99.999% uptime.
Maybe they don't need that level of reliability, but if they do five-9s, they will probably find that whatever system or group of systems replaces it will have similar support costs.
I think they might be, otherwise they wouldn't need to block some numbers. They would be paying a flat fee. They blocked the numbers because those numbers are apparently costing them more than a normal number. Why?
Because their wholesale carrier charges google based on their own costs.
Like I said, if google really were their own carrier they would be subject to the same tariffs that all the other carriers are and this would be a non-issue because they would be following the tariffs. The tariffs are so ridiculously complicated due to regulatory capture that no one just "plugs in" and goes, they first hire an army of lawyers to parse everything and tell them what they must do and can't do.
Since when does a wedding couple look like a tall rectangle? That's what they drew in the video yet they got what they wanted.
When the search is limited to photos that come back from a search for the term "wedding couple" then that's quite probable.
I'm not saying there won't be false positives, just that because the pattern matching is done on a set of images that have already been pre-screened with the equivalent of a google image search, the false positive rate is probably going to be tolerable.
But I do have to agree with you on the reporters; they tend of have an agenda.
FWIW, people Olberman and Limbaugh aren't reporters - they are entertainers. Just as much as John Stewart is an entertainer. They may be a little less honest about their status, but what they do now is not reporting, at best it is commenting.
I answer stupid people on the internet like this all the time. Don't credit yourself too much now. This is pretty much what I do on slashdot. You can check my comment history.
Woah! I checked and all of your response thread degenerate into you calling the people arguing with you 'freetards' - amazing how consistent you are.
I am not going to respond to you anymore. This isn't enlightening or entertaining... it's just creepy. You seem like you might be getting off to this.
Of course its not any fun, nobody likes being fucked with, especially when they deserve it the most.
Except this thing doesn't need to recognize the subject as a 'dog' - just a shape that roughly matches the hand-sketched shape that the user provided and labeled "dog."
I'm amazed at how well this seems to automatically extract subjects from their background, something that usually requires a lot of painstaking manual work... honestly that's the real challenge of "photoshopping", becoming a ninja with the selection tools.
The reason the software is a binary distribution is because it is actually sending the images to hundreds of thousands of chinese prisoners who are being made to use pirated copies of photoshop to select out the figures from the backgrounds and then send the results back.
Slashdot Mirror
What stacks are those?
Police : Why does that car return no signature even though it's right in front of me ? Better stop them and find out.
That's not how most cops use their radar guns.
They set them to alarm at a certain threshold, point them down the road and then take a snooze until the alarm goes off.
Shall I go on?
Yes, you REALLY should.
Every ALL of those statues that you quoted contained almost identical language saying:
However, no person charged with a violation of the provisions of this section
shall be convicted if a driver's license issued to the person and valid at the
time of his arrest is produced in court.
I mean COME ON dude, it is not a crime if you can't be convicted of it.
A layer of obscurity over a secure system can seem good, but is unnecessary (because you have a secure system already).
That is false. No system is 100% secure, all that can be expected is to delay a successful attack. The more secure, the longer the delay.
Understood from that context, an additional layer of obscurity does increase security. The question really boils down to the cost-effectiveness of that layer - if maintaining that layer creates excessive overhead, then it may be a net loss in the cost/benefit trade-off column. But if cost is not part of the evaluation - and the prior poster never mentioned it - then it is true to say that obscurity always increases security.
I'm not sure that's true.
You are welcome, and in fact encouraged, to cite the relevant statutes that require that you carry your license when driving.
What about all the similar crap that goes on with other devices? iPhone, XBOX, Wii, NDS, plus loads others?! EFF, why aren't you defending user's rights there?
They issued a press release about the calculators.
They have done way more than that for the iphone and ipod - http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2009/7/23
They supported the "Hacking the Xbox" book by using it as a prize for people who donated to the EFF.
Got a cite?
And dont be so droll as to think that cops are going to be pinning crimes on John Q Innocent because he matches 80%...they are going to investigate just as they would any other crime.
Drollin...
Drollin...
Drollin down the rivah
Personally, I am for a national ID system - and a national ID card. Verify social security numbers and biometric data (and even DNA) - and unless govt screws the pooch - identity theft is a thing of the past. Mistaken identity is a thing of the past. Illegal aliens using false ID is a thing of the past.
That's the same kind of thing people say all the time about new, unimplemented technologies - but real life never works out that way. At the very best, all that will be accomplished is that most peope who circumvent the current system will figure out a way to circumvent the new system.
Think of the logistics of what you are proposing and all of the places in the chain where it can be compromised - at the point of scanning you to put into the database, at the point of scanning you to compare to the database, etc. You have seen GATTACA right? Even their system wasn't fool-proof and it was uber-big-brother - if this country ever gets to that level of big-brother, national-id or not, we are all kinds of screwed - so you can count on any such system being even more flawed than the one in GATTACA.
Yea, right. I'm half Pacific Islander, I don't think my three facial hairs will do much good.
Then try putting cotton balls beneath your lower lip and up each nostril before getting your DMV picture taken.
That might distort the geometry of your chin and nose enough to make this system totally worthless and not be terribly obvious to the person taking the picture - worst case, just tell them you have a cold.
Carrying a license is obviously required when engaged in the relevant activity (driving, hunting, selling alcohol, etc.)
That is a common misconception too. Owning such a license is required, but in most states (probably all of them) there is no law that requires you to carry your drivers license when actually driving. It makes life harder if you get detained, but it is not a crime.
Irony detector fully functional - a simple joke isn't irony.
But thinking that it is irony is itself ironic.
Large Hadron Collider. Now THAT'S a weapon of mass destruction.
Aha. These aren't weapons of mass destruction - they are systems of entropy creation!
f I upload something to MySpace.. that's -me- sending data -to- them; typically after setting up an account, agreeing to a bunch of legalese, etc.
Rupert Murdoch's websites aren't submitting articles to Google News. Google News simply takes them (as part of the generic GoogleBot*), and republishes snippets.
The only difference is who writes the contract, aka the 'legalese.' All contracts are binding on BOTH parties - so MySpace has the 'upper hand' and gets to dictate the terms under which artists put stuff on MySpace. With Google News, it is Google who has the upper hand and gets to dictate the terms under which Murdoch puts stuff on Google. In both cases, all parties agree to a contract, and all parties are free to walk away from it if they don't like the terms.
'The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content,
Considering that Murdoch owns MySpace and markets it to artists as a place where independents, and even established artists, can show their wares - in effect aggregating boatloads of content that is not his in the first place - the irony of his whining is almost too much to bear.
Unless you have one of those "favorites" things in your cell plan, where you have unlimited calls to 5 numbers (or whatever).
I thought everybody knew about those promotions, that's why I said, "...unless the cellphone service independently allows free phone calls." It still isn't google giving you the call for free, it is the cell phone provider choosing not to charge you by the minute for those calls (you still must pay the monthly fee).
Yeah... that's not really how it works.
Unfortunately the article doesn't mention what exactly makes the $700k. I'm not into mainframes, maybe someone else has details on what makes mainframe maintenance so costly?
It's the 99.999% uptime that is a typical requirement of mainframe apps. That means things like remote monitoring by the vendor via a direct link to the system so that the diagnostic subsystem can tell the vendor that parts are failing before they fail and then the vendor will usually have a 4 hour or less requirement to get new parts on site, the logistics of which are a lot more expensive than they appear at first glance (gotta have local hardware depots with enough spare parts to cover all contingencies, including multiple simultaneous failures at multiple sites at different side of the city, etc). Then there is the cost of the human expertise - mainframe customers expect 1st-line support to be one level away from engineering - absolutely no scripted phone support weenies. The on-site hardware techs are also a couple of orders above the typical vendor hardware tech who is frequently a jack-of-all-trades and master of none - the mainframe guys are dedicated to mainframe support and are typically on a first-name basis with the engineers who designed the hardware.
So in summary - extremely rapid response plus top-flight human talent equals big bucks.
The article did say that the mainframe was old and thus support costs were even higher which is common - as hardware is obsoleted it becomes more and more expensive to stock replacement parts (and engineering staff). So maybe they could shave a hundred grand or two off that price if they were using a mainframe that had not been end-of-lifed a while ago.
$700K/yr for software support and hardware maintenance isn't really out of line for a high-capacity system with 99.999% uptime.
Maybe they don't need that level of reliability, but if they do five-9s, they will probably find that whatever system or group of systems replaces it will have similar support costs.
I think they might be, otherwise they wouldn't need to block some numbers. They would be paying a flat fee. They blocked the numbers because those numbers are apparently costing them more than a normal number. Why?
Because their wholesale carrier charges google based on their own costs.
Like I said, if google really were their own carrier they would be subject to the same tariffs that all the other carriers are and this would be a non-issue because they would be following the tariffs. The tariffs are so ridiculously complicated due to regulatory capture that no one just "plugs in" and goes, they first hire an army of lawyers to parse everything and tell them what they must do and can't do.
Because if they end up consuming their own exports, what ELSE are they going to export? Sand? Dates?
Ahhh... date-an-iranian.com
Since when does a wedding couple look like a tall rectangle? That's what they drew in the video yet they got what they wanted.
When the search is limited to photos that come back from a search for the term "wedding couple" then that's quite probable.
I'm not saying there won't be false positives, just that because the pattern matching is done on a set of images that have already been pre-screened with the equivalent of a google image search, the false positive rate is probably going to be tolerable.
But I do have to agree with you on the reporters; they tend of have an agenda.
FWIW, people Olberman and Limbaugh aren't reporters - they are entertainers.
Just as much as John Stewart is an entertainer. They may be a little less honest about their status, but what they do now is not reporting, at best it is commenting.
I answer stupid people on the internet like this all the time. Don't credit yourself too much now. This is pretty much what I do on slashdot. You can check my comment history.
Woah! I checked and all of your response thread degenerate into you calling the people arguing with you 'freetards' - amazing how consistent you are.
I am not going to respond to you anymore. This isn't enlightening or entertaining... it's just creepy. You seem like you might be getting off to this.
Of course its not any fun, nobody likes being fucked with, especially when they deserve it the most.
Except this thing doesn't need to recognize the subject as a 'dog' - just a shape that roughly matches the hand-sketched shape that the user provided and labeled "dog."
I'm amazed at how well this seems to automatically extract subjects from their background, something that usually requires a lot of painstaking manual work... honestly that's the real challenge of "photoshopping", becoming a ninja with the selection tools.
The reason the software is a binary distribution is because it is actually sending the images to hundreds of thousands of chinese prisoners who are being made to use pirated copies of photoshop to select out the figures from the backgrounds and then send the results back.