Thanks for the link. It's not as bad as I initially thought.
The system:
1) asks for login id
2) if it "recognizes" you (meaning you still have a BofA cookie) then it shows you the SiteKey image
3) if it doesn't recognize you, then it asks the personal questions, and then shows you the SiteKey image
4) if you agree with the image, only then do you type in your password.
The person is still giving out personal information, but at least it won't include the password. Could be worse and could be better.
From TFA: "Customers can also verify they are indeed at Bank of America's Web site by clicking on a SiteKey button. If they fail to see a secret image and phrase they had chosen earlier, they could be at a fake Web site and the target of a "phishing" scam."
So... once the person has given his account id, password, and answers to 3 personal questions, only then can he verify BofA's site identity?
I'm not defending anyone here, but I am setting the record straight because the parent is full of bull.
"Remeber [sic] Cringely famously posted in 1998 that the iMac launch was going to fail."
Nowhere did Cringely say in his article that the iMac launch was doomed. Here, read the whole article that the parent conveniently neglected to link. Heck, even in the quote the parent used, there's nothing about lack of demand, or the souring of consumer opinion, only concerns about initial supply.
"We didn't see stories about them because it was all bull."
The parent has a short memory. Anyone paying attention to Apple knew about their supply problems. Here's an article I found in 30 seconds by using Google titled "Supply problems persist for Apple" from C|Net, dated November 4, 1999. You want a complaint from 1998? Here's another that mentions, you guessed it, supply problems. "The biggest problem with the weekend festivities, as you can imagine, was that there were not enough iMacs to go around."
Moresupplyproblems.
Thanks for remembering. People aren't taught that fact (the one you referenced) in class, nor is it hardly ever mentioned in documentaries. It is definitely not common knowledge.
My father was one of those "advisors." Long before the Gulf of Tonkin meant anything, my dad was participating in a hot war in Vietnam.
Some people would still argue with me.
BTW, Eisenhower sent in the first wave of troops, not Johnson.
The President has no role in amending the Constitution. Neither do the courts. Congress may play a role if it chooses by proposing amendments. Only the states may change the Constitution.
What do you define as a "role?"
Anyone can submit a Constitutional amendment. Of course, one must convene a Constitutional Convention first, if one wants to circumvent Congress. After the amendment gets the necessary votes, it is then passed to the states for ratification. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Why don't I see people here talking about how this may harm Apple rather than help it?
SGI and Be come to mind. Both switched to Intel, both had sales that cratered, because buyers found the value in having a different CPU, not the operating systems. Nevermind the early pre-announcement (don't expect a retail MIntel until December) that will destroy sales.
Linux programmers wanted Macintoshes because it was an easy way to get a PowerPC system. Now that Mac will be x86 based, Linux programmers won't spend a premium for what they could already get from Dell, or put together from scratch, cheaper.
It definitely won't hurt Linux, and it definitely won't help Apple. Look for Apple to contract in the next couple of years with layoffs, and with marketshare. Why buy an Apple when you can buy a Dell and get the same performance cheaper?
The local recycling places all charge $12 to accept a monitor, working or not. Right now, I've got 4 monitors and a TV to get rid of but I don't have the $60 to throw them away.
Do you have $12? You could recycle one, then next time you have another $12, recycle another -- repeat until done.
Or... what about Craigslist? Have you tried looking through or placing ads? The ads are free.
From Lt. Stedman's testimony: Another of our cases began with the stop of a suspect at LAX by U.S. Customs Officers. Strapped to the suspect's body was more than $230,000 in cash. The suspect told the Customs Officers that she was enroute to Lebanon for "vacation." Information was developed that the suspect owned a chain of cigarette shops. Service of search warrants led to the seizure of more than 1,000 cartons of counterfeit cigarettes, an additional $70,000 in cash as well as wire transfers to banks throughout the world. The financial cost of IPR related crimes to the State of California is significant. As an example my small team has seized about 40,000 cartons of counterfeit, untaxed, cigarettes. The California State Tax on cigarettes is eight dollars and seventy cents per carton, representing a loss to the State of $348,000. It should not be a surprise to anyone that suspects involved in IPR crime do not concern themselves with paying appropriate taxes whether federal, state or local. Our experience has been that suspects claiming twenty or thirty thousand dollars on their income tax forms routinely keep tens of thousands of dollars in cash at their homes. The World Customs Organization estimates counterfeiting accounts for lost sales to legitimate companies worldwide at over 500 billion dollars. The United States accounts for nearly $300 billion of this total. Official estimates are that between five and seven percent of products produced worldwide are counterfeit. Despite these numbers, large, multi-national corporations, big tobacco, and the pharmaceutical industry are not generally seen as sympathetic victims; retail purchasers seek out these goods with little appreciation for the ramifications of such a purchase. There must be the understanding that this crime affects all citizens through fraud, the diversion of tax revenue, and the empowerment of the criminal element.
Mr. Stedman, please elaborate as to how cigarettes and taxes have anything to do with copyright law.
This is what the judge said (from the article): "We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.
He did not say the encryption program was evidence of guilt.
Is this 45 degrees only from the south? north? east? west? All directions?
Is it from the equator, at which point the viewing angle would change as the latitude changes -- meaning 45 degrees is just a number thrown out by marketing.
Knowing Microsoft, I'd have to interpret from this article the worst case scenario for the feature: an equatorial view from a geosynchronous satellite.
And to follow up on my earlier comment, your revisionist history is easily disproven:
The reporters reported it worked for them (or that they had tested the wrong patch), so as far as I knew it worked ok.
Wrong! If you had thoroughly read through the comments you would have seen that the same person who reported the openpty failure replied to you to say that the patches didn't work.
------- Additional Comment #12 From *** 2004-09-07 21:21 [reply] -------
Daren: I ran autoconf after modifying configure.ac, of course. But I only
applied the latest patch from here (...which handles the zlib test)...
It's a huge leap from that comment to Resolved and Fixed.
I will continue to knock you down until you cut your attitude. I don't know where it came from, as I started out polite, but you will not go very far with that.
What makes you think we have a cross-compile environment to test it on?
Simple. Just tell it to cross-compile. It's nothing more than an option. If it wants to perform those checks, then you've failed.
As for submitting a patch: patches took 4 years to be accepted, and then 6 months for a release after that. What makes you think I have the time to deal with that?
So you have time to "to tediously hand-edit the configure script" every release and whine about it on/. but not submit a patch of your work so that you won't have to do it again?
No. I don't have time to wait 4 years and 6 months for you to get your act together, stop complaining on slashdot, apply patches, and for once, show that your parents didn't throw away their money on your CS degree by using some common sense and performing a simple test to make sure a bug has gone away before closing it.
Was that harsh? Oh I'm sorry. Maybe it was your smart-assed remark about whining. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Well, if you want it fixed then please open a bug at http://bugzilla.mindrot.org, and better yet, attach your patch.
Someone already did reference this issue in the bug you referenced #321 yet the bug was labelled as "Resolved and Fixed" anyway. A simple test would have caught this issue.
As for submitting a patch: patches took 4 years to be accepted, and then 6 months for a release after that. What makes you think I have the time to deal with that?
For example, I want to build OpenSSH on an i386 Linux for an embedded MIPS Linux. Configure will detect that it is cross-compiling, but will still insist on performing its compile-and-run tests, either by erroring when it tries to run the MIPS binary on i386, or by saying it won't proceed any further because I'm cross-compiling which means it can't do its... test.
I had to tediously hand-edit the configure script to shut off those errors (I lost count of how many instances) -- after which everything worked fine. But with each new release, I will need to edit that script again, which I don't enjoy.
"they're starting to have success with automatic clustering of concepts, so that pages can match even if none of the words in your query actually appear on the page."
I have yet to see a "hit" served up by google where it didn't have any words I searched for and it still be relevant. It's especially annoying when I search for exact phrases (such as an error message) and I get something completely different. It's a waste of time so far.
"You do realize that if you can't prove your identity, your clients are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, right?"
In theory this is true, but in reality most browsers do not present the certificate to the user by default. If it did, most people would turn it off to stop being annoyed. There is a large disconnect between what people SHOULD do, and what people actually do. The certificate, as long as the browser trusts the CA, gets accepted no matter what. Since people don't care, a good fix is to add another "security level" in the browser where it won't care if the cert comes from a trusted CA -- thus if people want to disable that annoying trust dialog, people can. No more extorting money from websites to turn off that overly dramatic dialog box.
Wouldn't the security ball eventually scratch up its outer shell by rolling on it, eventually making any video useless? Maybe this is why it was rejected as a Mars rover.
If you run enough transactions between vacuum runs (iirc a billion), the transaction counter will wrap around and suddenly your data does not have a consistant point of reference regarding visible transactions.
Nice to see that someone else knows about this "feature" too.
I've seen it happen several times. There's absolutely no warning before it does -- the database just starts returning multiple versions of the same records. On a busy database, this can happen every few days.
To set up a cron job is a kludge. An autovacuum daemon is also a kludge. Why? Because if the database gets busier, a vacuum would need to be run near constantly in order to beat the clock.
Those who say PGSQL is all about data integrity are fooling themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the link. It's not as bad as I initially thought. The system: 1) asks for login id 2) if it "recognizes" you (meaning you still have a BofA cookie) then it shows you the SiteKey image 3) if it doesn't recognize you, then it asks the personal questions, and then shows you the SiteKey image 4) if you agree with the image, only then do you type in your password. The person is still giving out personal information, but at least it won't include the password. Could be worse and could be better.
From TFA:
"Customers can also verify they are indeed at Bank of America's Web site by clicking on a SiteKey button. If they fail to see a secret image and phrase they had chosen earlier, they could be at a fake Web site and the target of a "phishing" scam."
So... once the person has given his account id, password, and answers to 3 personal questions, only then can he verify BofA's site identity?
What kind of idiot came up with that idea?
I'm not defending anyone here, but I am setting the record straight because the parent is full of bull. "Remeber [sic] Cringely famously posted in 1998 that the iMac launch was going to fail." Nowhere did Cringely say in his article that the iMac launch was doomed. Here, read the whole article that the parent conveniently neglected to link. Heck, even in the quote the parent used, there's nothing about lack of demand, or the souring of consumer opinion, only concerns about initial supply. "We didn't see stories about them because it was all bull." The parent has a short memory. Anyone paying attention to Apple knew about their supply problems. Here's an article I found in 30 seconds by using Google titled "Supply problems persist for Apple" from C|Net, dated November 4, 1999. You want a complaint from 1998? Here's another that mentions, you guessed it, supply problems. "The biggest problem with the weekend festivities, as you can imagine, was that there were not enough iMacs to go around." More supply problems.
Too complex for me. I like to keep it real.
Thanks for remembering. People aren't taught that fact (the one you referenced) in class, nor is it hardly ever mentioned in documentaries. It is definitely not common knowledge.
My father was one of those "advisors." Long before the Gulf of Tonkin meant anything, my dad was participating in a hot war in Vietnam.
Some people would still argue with me.
BTW, Eisenhower sent in the first wave of troops, not Johnson.
The President has no role in amending the Constitution. Neither do the courts. Congress may play a role if it chooses by proposing amendments. Only the states may change the Constitution.
What do you define as a "role?"
Anyone can submit a Constitutional amendment. Of course, one must convene a Constitutional Convention first, if one wants to circumvent Congress. After the amendment gets the necessary votes, it is then passed to the states for ratification. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Why don't I see people here talking about how this may harm Apple rather than help it?
SGI and Be come to mind. Both switched to Intel, both had sales that cratered, because buyers found the value in having a different CPU, not the operating systems. Nevermind the early pre-announcement (don't expect a retail MIntel until December) that will destroy sales.
Linux programmers wanted Macintoshes because it was an easy way to get a PowerPC system. Now that Mac will be x86 based, Linux programmers won't spend a premium for what they could already get from Dell, or put together from scratch, cheaper.
It definitely won't hurt Linux, and it definitely won't help Apple. Look for Apple to contract in the next couple of years with layoffs, and with marketshare. Why buy an Apple when you can buy a Dell and get the same performance cheaper?
The local recycling places all charge $12 to accept a monitor, working or not. Right now, I've got 4 monitors and a TV to get rid of but I don't have the $60 to throw them away.
Do you have $12? You could recycle one, then next time you have another $12, recycle another -- repeat until done.
Or... what about Craigslist? Have you tried looking through or placing ads? The ads are free.
From Lt. Stedman's testimony:
Another of our cases began with the stop of a suspect at LAX by U.S. Customs Officers. Strapped to the suspect's body was more than $230,000 in cash. The suspect told the Customs Officers that she was enroute to Lebanon for "vacation." Information was developed that the suspect owned a chain of cigarette shops. Service of search warrants led to the seizure of more than 1,000 cartons of counterfeit cigarettes, an additional $70,000 in cash as well as wire transfers to banks throughout the world.
The financial cost of IPR related crimes to the State of California is significant. As an example my small team has seized about 40,000 cartons of counterfeit, untaxed, cigarettes. The California State Tax on cigarettes is eight dollars and seventy cents per carton, representing a loss to the State of $348,000. It should not be a surprise to anyone that suspects involved in IPR crime do not concern themselves with paying appropriate taxes whether federal, state or local. Our experience has been that suspects claiming twenty or thirty thousand dollars on their income tax forms routinely keep tens of thousands of dollars in cash at their homes.
The World Customs Organization estimates counterfeiting accounts for lost sales to legitimate companies worldwide at over 500 billion dollars. The United States accounts for nearly $300 billion of this total. Official estimates are that between five and seven percent of products produced worldwide are counterfeit. Despite these numbers, large, multi-national corporations, big tobacco, and the pharmaceutical industry are not generally seen as sympathetic victims; retail purchasers seek out these goods with little appreciation for the ramifications of such a purchase. There must be the understanding that this crime affects all citizens through fraud, the diversion of tax revenue, and the empowerment of the criminal element.
Mr. Stedman, please elaborate as to how cigarettes and taxes have anything to do with copyright law.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8ABG GK80.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_up
This is what the judge said (from the article):
"We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.
He did not say the encryption program was evidence of guilt.
To say otherwise is tabloid "journalism."
Is this 45 degrees only from the south? north? east? west? All directions?
Is it from the equator, at which point the viewing angle would change as the latitude changes -- meaning 45 degrees is just a number thrown out by marketing.
Knowing Microsoft, I'd have to interpret from this article the worst case scenario for the feature: an equatorial view from a geosynchronous satellite.
AP wire story via Yahoo. No registration required.
Plants Challenge Genetic Inheritance Laws
Simple. Just tell it to cross-compile. It's nothing more than an option. If it wants to perform those checks, then you've failed.
No. I don't have time to wait 4 years and 6 months for you to get your act together, stop complaining on slashdot, apply patches, and for once, show that your parents didn't throw away their money on your CS degree by using some common sense and performing a simple test to make sure a bug has gone away before closing it.
Was that harsh? Oh I'm sorry. Maybe it was your smart-assed remark about whining. Pot. Kettle. Black.
As for submitting a patch: patches took 4 years to be accepted, and then 6 months for a release after that. What makes you think I have the time to deal with that?
Sorry, it still errors out. However, it does get farther this time.
checking if openpty correctly handles controlling tty... configure: error: cannot run test program while cross compiling
Does ./configure handle cross-compile situations correctly yet?
... test.
For example, I want to build OpenSSH on an i386 Linux for an embedded MIPS Linux. Configure will detect that it is cross-compiling, but will still insist on performing its compile-and-run tests, either by erroring when it tries to run the MIPS binary on i386, or by saying it won't proceed any further because I'm cross-compiling which means it can't do its
I had to tediously hand-edit the configure script to shut off those errors (I lost count of how many instances) -- after which everything worked fine. But with each new release, I will need to edit that script again, which I don't enjoy.
I wrote AltiVec code in 1999, and I even have a faded AltiVec t-shirt from the same year. AltiVec is just not new.
"Re-Introducing" would be a better title.
"they're starting to have success with automatic clustering of concepts, so that pages can match even if none of the words in your query actually appear on the page."
I have yet to see a "hit" served up by google where it didn't have any words I searched for and it still be relevant. It's especially annoying when I search for exact phrases (such as an error message) and I get something completely different. It's a waste of time so far.
"You do realize that if you can't prove your identity, your clients are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, right?"
In theory this is true, but in reality most browsers do not present the certificate to the user by default. If it did, most people would turn it off to stop being annoyed. There is a large disconnect between what people SHOULD do, and what people actually do. The certificate, as long as the browser trusts the CA, gets accepted no matter what. Since people don't care, a good fix is to add another "security level" in the browser where it won't care if the cert comes from a trusted CA -- thus if people want to disable that annoying trust dialog, people can. No more extorting money from websites to turn off that overly dramatic dialog box.
Wouldn't the security ball eventually scratch up its outer shell by rolling on it, eventually making any video useless? Maybe this is why it was rejected as a Mars rover.
If you run enough transactions between vacuum runs (iirc a billion), the transaction counter will wrap around and suddenly your data does not have a consistant point of reference regarding visible transactions.
Nice to see that someone else knows about this "feature" too.
I've seen it happen several times. There's absolutely no warning before it does -- the database just starts returning multiple versions of the same records. On a busy database, this can happen every few days.
To set up a cron job is a kludge. An autovacuum daemon is also a kludge. Why? Because if the database gets busier, a vacuum would need to be run near constantly in order to beat the clock.
Those who say PGSQL is all about data integrity are fooling themselves.
The editor was just quoting the AP article. The interesting part is that the NYTimes has the same "anomaly" explanation also.
Do you have a better, just as (or more) reputable source? If you're going to bash, you should back up your opinion.
This idea of number of lines seems like an odd/arbitrary metric to me.
It's based on an 80 character line width, commonly used for command-line terminals.