Surely if the cops are googling, criminals have
been googling for a while too. Will changing metatags for better "I'm-no-criminal" placement help them evade the long arm of the law?
It's only a matter of time before Google will have the new GEvader Beta system....
This thread is veering way off topic, and I realize this, but there are a couple of important issues here that need to be addressed. (Please don't mod me down.:)
1) Firefox is about as secure and obscure as any of the less. There are a multitude of different browsers out there now, and undeniably companies like Espial and Opera have lost a lot of ground to the popularity of Firefox. Hackers have the implicit goal of doing something because they can. Exploiting holes in a piece of software starts as a "I will see if I can do this" and may eventually turn into a "Let's see who I can #$%^ over" plan. It varies. If Firefox had the most number of seats it could still be a target.
2) MS is a business, and businesses try to make wads of cash anywhere they can. Every MS success technical success also has a large number of accompanying failures. Businesses have focus changes; some are successful and some are not. The free market (voting with dollars) decides who will be around.
Cases in point: a) Sun started losing ground in the server market, so they started looking to Java as their next savior.
b) SGI started losing ground the in the graphics workstation market and got behind OpenGL as a standard.
c) Be, Inc changed focus from their operating system to Information Appliances and it wound them up filing for bankruptcy.
d) Apple gave up on the Pippin and the Newton, but they started doing iPods because they wanted to have a me-too with the Rios and Creative Nomads.
e) Sony for walked right in and created its own games console when Nintendo and Sega were making cash hand over fist. It paid off for them.
f) Many companies created Doom knockoffs in the 90s and everyone and their brother now are trying to make silly bowling games for cell phones. Businesses are copycats. If they see success in an area, it is much easier to imitate (and litigate) than to innovate.
The point behind all of these stories is that you have to diversify and change directions in order to stay afloat in business; With or without any implied innovation. MS, as well as any big business has a lot of potential to stagnate, and diversifying markets is not a bad idea. MS is just one target of stagnation out of many.
To protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable information through spyware programs, and for other purposes.
Isn't this the exact opposite of what the UCITA was trying to do? Funny how the tides change. Maybe next year the law being pushed will be to mandate end users access to all corporate servers...
UCITA allows software and information products to contain "back door" entrances, potentially making users' systems vulnerable to infiltration by unauthorized hackers.
I don't even want to hear about new display technology until I can throw some grey goo at the wall and have them new fangled nanomachines playing video.
It may not be as easy as everyone thinks but
there are plenty of training areas for the bots.
1) U. of Alberta's server
2) All of the casino sites that offer "demo" mode.
Anyone working on a poker bot can fairly easily
train them until they get good. The only rule
adjustment is that going from a "demo" site to a
real site will be that the players may be tighter
depending on the buy-in.
A halfway decent implementation will be
able to make up its own betting rules and do opponent modeling on the fly.
More importantly, you address the issue of collusion, but even if you and 3 of your friends are sitting at the table as a majority, you're going to lose more by paying up on the blinds than you are going to profit by the collusion.
IMNSHO it would be easier for a casino site to
detect collusion than it would be to detect a bot,
because the casino knows what all of the cards are.
BTW, since you've got some CS background, any theories on how (in a general case) to guess the seed to their random number generators for their card shuffling algorithm by using your hand and the flop as a key?:):):)
Is this question a troll or what?
2 problems with this means of authentication:
1) Its annoying to be chatty at an online game,
and it slows down the playing of the hands.
(I've seen people swearing quite a bit on
Pacific Poker because people are taking too long
to make their decisions)
2) What will be your criteria? This sounds like
the poker equivalent of a literacy test. It would be hard to come up with an unbiased way to do it,
and it could be easily defeated.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only a matter of time before Google will have the new GEvader Beta system....
This thread is veering way off topic, and I realize this, but there are a couple of important issues here that need to be addressed. (Please don't mod me down.
1) Firefox is about as secure and obscure as any of the less. There are a multitude of different browsers out there now, and undeniably companies like Espial and Opera have lost a lot of ground to the popularity of Firefox. Hackers have the implicit goal of doing something because they can. Exploiting holes in a piece of software starts as a "I will see if I can do this" and may eventually turn into a "Let's see who I can #$%^ over" plan. It varies. If Firefox had the most number of seats it could still be a target.
2) MS is a business, and businesses try to make wads of cash anywhere they can. Every MS success technical success also has a large number of accompanying failures. Businesses have focus changes; some are successful and some are not. The free market (voting with dollars) decides who will be around.
Cases in point:
a) Sun started losing ground in the server market, so they started looking to Java as their next savior.
b) SGI started losing ground the in the graphics workstation market and got behind OpenGL as a standard.
c) Be, Inc changed focus from their operating system to Information Appliances and it wound them up filing for bankruptcy.
d) Apple gave up on the Pippin and the Newton, but
they started doing iPods because they wanted to have a me-too with the Rios and Creative Nomads.
e) Sony for walked right in and created its own games console when Nintendo and Sega were making cash hand over fist. It paid off for them.
f) Many companies created Doom knockoffs in the 90s and everyone and their brother now are trying to make silly bowling games for cell phones. Businesses are copycats. If they see success in an area, it is much easier to imitate (and litigate) than to innovate.
The point behind all of these stories is that you have to diversify and change directions in order to stay afloat in business; With or without any implied innovation. MS, as well as any big business has a lot of potential to stagnate, and diversifying markets is not a bad idea. MS is just one target of stagnation out of many.
It's just a matter of time before our regular /. crowd decides they want to overclock, mod it, and put Linux on it.
I don't even want to hear about new display technology until I can throw some grey goo at the wall and have them new fangled nanomachines playing video.
It may not be as easy as everyone thinks but there are plenty of training areas for the bots. 1) U. of Alberta's server 2) All of the casino sites that offer "demo" mode. Anyone working on a poker bot can fairly easily train them until they get good. The only rule adjustment is that going from a "demo" site to a real site will be that the players may be tighter depending on the buy-in. A halfway decent implementation will be able to make up its own betting rules and do opponent modeling on the fly. More importantly, you address the issue of collusion, but even if you and 3 of your friends are sitting at the table as a majority, you're going to lose more by paying up on the blinds than you are going to profit by the collusion. IMNSHO it would be easier for a casino site to detect collusion than it would be to detect a bot, because the casino knows what all of the cards are. BTW, since you've got some CS background, any theories on how (in a general case) to guess the seed to their random number generators for their card shuffling algorithm by using your hand and the flop as a key? :) :) :)
Is this question a troll or what? 2 problems with this means of authentication: 1) Its annoying to be chatty at an online game, and it slows down the playing of the hands. (I've seen people swearing quite a bit on Pacific Poker because people are taking too long to make their decisions) 2) What will be your criteria? This sounds like the poker equivalent of a literacy test. It would be hard to come up with an unbiased way to do it, and it could be easily defeated.