Even humans themselves seem to have more variability when compared to other primates.
There is the possibility that this perception exists for the same reasons some people believe all asian (or whatever) people look alike - it's a familiarity thing. Could be that you're only assuming there isn't much variability because you haven't spent enough time around primates to notice the differences.
Personally, I'm waiting until they have some way to 'rank' all the 'page's they link to. I'm sure they can figure out some metric for a 'page' to gain a 'rank'.
You seem to suffer from a complete lack of imagination. Lets hope we can say the same of the spammers. Consider the following:-
Spammer A sees hundreds of thousands of fake orders, notes email address of fake orders (a tracking link in the spam, maybe?) - Spammer A sends one million messages that appear to be that of his competitors. Spammer A now has less competition and that alone just paid for his extra time throwing out bad orders. And before you hop on the 'but what if there isn't a tracking link?' bandwagon - all he has to do is throw out connections that don't contain a matching hash in the URL. This isn't rocket science.
Also, we're not so much talking about thousands of hits, we're talking millions. In order for this to be effective, a meausurable percentage of a spammers 'market' has to respond with crap. If a spammer is working with a million address database (which, I believe, is fairly conservative) - that's one million hits per campaign. I don't see how this wouldn't consitute a DDOS.
Well, that's what I'm assuming - especially considering that XP 64 is a very 'quiet' release. It'd be the perfect place for increased DRM.
Of course, I could just be being paranoid. The weirdest stuff sets off re-activation sometimes anyway - I've seen it ignore a new motherboard and complain over a new sound card. I've also seen it balk at a new video card, but accept it if you swap out the other PCI cards first, then swap them back in after it's installed.
Could just be that the hash is now stored as a 64-bit number and still has the if outside xxx bits difference code from XP 32-bit (i.e. the code isn't taking into account the increased precision of the hash). All I really know for sure is that activation in x64 is much touchier then in regular XP Pro.
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that it's not a DDOS, it's crapflooding their inbox. In order to make money, they gotta receive orders. The idea is not to overload their server's bandwidth, but rather render their response receiving system useless by making it too hard to find the legitimate orders amongst the thousands of ones saying "get stuffed!" or "send 100 million of your penis pills to me: GW Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave".
Thousands of hits wouldn't == a DDOS? Considering the proposal is for an automated system, they're equivalent in this case.
A spammer is going to send free advertising for his competition and hope that he's annoying enough to cause a backlash? Un-fucking-likely.
This claim relies on spammers not knowing how to check their log files. If 100,000 fake orders came from certain, specific, addresses - spam those addresses. DDOS away!
A brief warning about XP64 - it's activation system is quite a bit stricter then XP. I've had to reactivate 3 times since I've got my hands on it, once for adding a sound card, once for removing it and once for adding a PCI firewire card.
It's also horribly supported by manufacturers. If you need wireless networking, look elsewhere - also you may have trouble finding printer drivers, and heaven help you if you rely on USB mass storage.
I'm familiar with SPF, and it's probably a good idea (not sure I agree with using TXT records, but that's a different discussion). However, you've got to realise that the links in most spam don't point to the machines that are actually sending the spam.
Until a hoard of angry anti-spammers hit the site with their pseudo-DDOS, the spammer hasn't done anything to warrent their being ejected from most hosts.
Have you noticed that everytime a brilliant solution arise, a solution that seems just right and appropriate. A solution that would maybe not stop but at least truly hinder spam or virii and stuff like that, security firm says its a bad idea, its vigilantism and crap like that.
This is hardly a brilliant solution. A spammer could send spam, that looks just like the spam of his competition, and he's got a free DDOS.
Also, most spam sites are brand new hosting accounts set up on legitimate hosts with an automated sign-up process - not necessarily related to their mail servers. This means a response like this could be expected to catch a whole lot of innocent bystanders in the cross-fire - people who's only crime was to be hosted by a certain company. (And don't try and blame the companies. All the anti-spam policies in the world don't protect you from users who only need access for an hour or two before they move on.)
Retaliating may help. But this is retaliation only insofar as it's a blind flailing of the limbs in the general direction of the spammer.
Nuke them all. If you do business with a spam-friendly ISP, you are partly responsible for the spam.
Of course, this argument only works if the ISP is aware of the spammers. A web hosting company with automated sign-up could have a spammer come along, sign up, and send out 10,000 emails in a few minutes before they're caught and their account is cancelled.
Is it then fair to a) call them a spam-friendly ISP and b) do harm to their other customers? More then that - is it fair to blame those customers, who are now losing out on traffic and possibly business, for the spam just because for a few minutes out of one day a spammer managed to be on the same subnet as they are?
Even simpler: drop the user straight to a working shell. That way, scripts will wait for the "ogin:" and "assword:" strings indefinitely until the connection times out, and legit users won't even have to enter their logins. As for hackers, they'll see the "~$" prompt, won't believe their eyes, will think it's a clever trap or something, and they'll promply disconnect out of paranoid fear:-)
I had something like this set up at one stage on a local machine (no internet access). Turning it on gave you a '#' prompt. Of course, if you didn't type 'uname ' within 20 seconds, the machine would power down and using any other command would result in an error message.
I can't remember exactly what the point of it was though.
Take a look at this Wikipedia Talk. Basically, as a device to heat a space, a heat pump is greater then 100% efficient because the energy you input into the system is smaller then the amount of heat energy you 'add' to the room. I couldn't find any properly detailed sources on the issue with a quick google search.
I had it explained to me something like this: If you imagine a device intended to push a huge boulder off a cliff, that device only needs to be provided with enough power to nudge the rock. However, if you measure the device's efficiency in terms of energy required to move the boulder all the way to the ground divided by the energy usage of the device - you get a device with greater then 100% efficiency.
Come on, folks. Every thread on slashdot lately, it seems everyone tries to make analogies, and everyone else is correcting them.
So it's like when you write a book, and something in it is confusing, and then some editor scribbles something less confusing in the margin, but everyone still ends up confused?
My understanding of this 'obscure FCC limit' was that there were concerns over some of the frequencies used by high-speed modems (at the time) turning the phone lines into huge transmitters that trod on other frequencies (similar to the ham radio vs. IP over power lines thing).
It's an American cartoon series. I have no idea which episode the 'pedantism' comment is in though. I suspect if they did say 'pedantism', it was intended to get the pedants cringing. (How do you correct someone saying 'pedantism' without sounding pedantic?)
The U.N. as a body is, though, not actually accountable to anyone.
By the same logic, all democracy collapses. The goverment of the U.S. is accountable to its citizens, the the same way the the U.N. is accountable to its members. It's power comes from agreement between its member states, and is not vested in it by some higher authority.
You must understand that in a democratic organisation, such as the U.N., the power comes from those being governed, and therefore, if those being governed decide they don't like those doing the governing, they simply remove them. It's the ultimate form of accountability - it exists by consensus and therefore can be destroyed by consensus.
The problem is that a jury of your peers who are not bound by specifics in the law will tend to exact inconsistant penalties. A man who runs over a cute
dog owned by a little old lady may get a $1,000,000 fine, a man who runs over a mutt owned by a rich young man may get a $100 fine.
You would also have people motivated by the idea that since the law is too vague, they can weasel their way out of it if they're charismatic enough.
It'd lead to a general lack of faith in the law IMO. And that would lead a lot more injustice.
Apps that crash are apps that apps compiled specifically with the flag 'use SSE' and that don't generate code for non-SSE machines. Intel, it seems, hid the 'check for non-Intel' bit inside the checks for SSE and SSE2 - see this site for more detail.
Which means that Intel could produce AMD64 CPUs if they wanted!
From what I understand, the agreement didn't apply to the AMD x64 chips. Intel had to enter into a seperate agreement in order to get its hands on enough x64-tech to build the emulation layer used by the EMT64.
Slashdot Mirror
Even humans themselves seem to have more variability when compared to other primates.
There is the possibility that this perception exists for the same reasons some people believe all asian (or whatever) people look alike - it's a familiarity thing. Could be that you're only assuming there isn't much variability because you haven't spent enough time around primates to notice the differences.
I can just see the headline tommorow, "Google searches the web for words" :)
It'll never happen - AltaVista has the market all sewn up.
Personally, I'm waiting until they have some way to 'rank' all the 'page's they link to. I'm sure they can figure out some metric for a 'page' to gain a 'rank'.
You seem to suffer from a complete lack of imagination. Lets hope we can say the same of the spammers. Consider the following :-
Spammer A sees hundreds of thousands of fake orders, notes email address of fake orders (a tracking link in the spam, maybe?) - Spammer A sends one million messages that appear to be that of his competitors. Spammer A now has less competition and that alone just paid for his extra time throwing out bad orders. And before you hop on the 'but what if there isn't a tracking link?' bandwagon - all he has to do is throw out connections that don't contain a matching hash in the URL. This isn't rocket science.
Also, we're not so much talking about thousands of hits, we're talking millions. In order for this to be effective, a meausurable percentage of a spammers 'market' has to respond with crap. If a spammer is working with a million address database (which, I believe, is fairly conservative) - that's one million hits per campaign. I don't see how this wouldn't consitute a DDOS.
Well, that's what I'm assuming - especially considering that XP 64 is a very 'quiet' release. It'd be the perfect place for increased DRM.
Of course, I could just be being paranoid. The weirdest stuff sets off re-activation sometimes anyway - I've seen it ignore a new motherboard and complain over a new sound card. I've also seen it balk at a new video card, but accept it if you swap out the other PCI cards first, then swap them back in after it's installed.
Could just be that the hash is now stored as a 64-bit number and still has the if outside xxx bits difference code from XP 32-bit (i.e. the code isn't taking into account the increased precision of the hash). All I really know for sure is that activation in x64 is much touchier then in regular XP Pro.
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that it's not a DDOS, it's crapflooding their inbox. In order to make money, they gotta receive orders. The idea is not to overload their server's bandwidth, but rather render their response receiving system useless by making it too hard to find the legitimate orders amongst the thousands of ones saying "get stuffed!" or "send 100 million of your penis pills to me: GW Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave".
Thousands of hits wouldn't == a DDOS? Considering the proposal is for an automated system, they're equivalent in this case.
A spammer is going to send free advertising for his competition and hope that he's annoying enough to cause a backlash? Un-fucking-likely.
This claim relies on spammers not knowing how to check their log files. If 100,000 fake orders came from certain, specific, addresses - spam those addresses. DDOS away!
Oh, yeah, that made a big fucking dent in his point.
I think he's seen some higher truth... Microsoft didn't create windows XP they... licensed it. From me. Ahem. Yeah. That's right.
That'll be $699, you XP-using heathens.
A brief warning about XP64 - it's activation system is quite a bit stricter then XP. I've had to reactivate 3 times since I've got my hands on it, once for adding a sound card, once for removing it and once for adding a PCI firewire card.
It's also horribly supported by manufacturers. If you need wireless networking, look elsewhere - also you may have trouble finding printer drivers, and heaven help you if you rely on USB mass storage.
I'm familiar with SPF, and it's probably a good idea (not sure I agree with using TXT records, but that's a different discussion). However, you've got to realise that the links in most spam don't point to the machines that are actually sending the spam.
Until a hoard of angry anti-spammers hit the site with their pseudo-DDOS, the spammer hasn't done anything to warrent their being ejected from most hosts.
Have you noticed that everytime a brilliant solution arise, a solution that seems just right and appropriate. A solution that would maybe not stop but at least truly hinder spam or virii and stuff like that, security firm says its a bad idea, its vigilantism and crap like that.
This is hardly a brilliant solution. A spammer could send spam, that looks just like the spam of his competition, and he's got a free DDOS.
Also, most spam sites are brand new hosting accounts set up on legitimate hosts with an automated sign-up process - not necessarily related to their mail servers. This means a response like this could be expected to catch a whole lot of innocent bystanders in the cross-fire - people who's only crime was to be hosted by a certain company. (And don't try and blame the companies. All the anti-spam policies in the world don't protect you from users who only need access for an hour or two before they move on.)
Retaliating may help. But this is retaliation only insofar as it's a blind flailing of the limbs in the general direction of the spammer.
Nuke them all. If you do business with a spam-friendly ISP, you are partly responsible for the spam.
Of course, this argument only works if the ISP is aware of the spammers. A web hosting company with automated sign-up could have a spammer come along, sign up, and send out 10,000 emails in a few minutes before they're caught and their account is cancelled.
Is it then fair to a) call them a spam-friendly ISP and b) do harm to their other customers? More then that - is it fair to blame those customers, who are now losing out on traffic and possibly business, for the spam just because for a few minutes out of one day a spammer managed to be on the same subnet as they are?
Even simpler: drop the user straight to a working shell. That way, scripts will wait for the "ogin:" and "assword:" strings indefinitely until the connection times out, and legit users won't even have to enter their logins. As for hackers, they'll see the "~$" prompt, won't believe their eyes, will think it's a clever trap or something, and they'll promply disconnect out of paranoid fear :-)
I had something like this set up at one stage on a local machine (no internet access). Turning it on gave you a '#' prompt. Of course, if you didn't type 'uname ' within 20 seconds, the machine would power down and using any other command would result in an error message.
I can't remember exactly what the point of it was though.
Take a look at this Wikipedia Talk. Basically, as a device to heat a space, a heat pump is greater then 100% efficient because the energy you input into the system is smaller then the amount of heat energy you 'add' to the room. I couldn't find any properly detailed sources on the issue with a quick google search.
I had it explained to me something like this: If you imagine a device intended to push a huge boulder off a cliff, that device only needs to be provided with enough power to nudge the rock. However, if you measure the device's efficiency in terms of energy required to move the boulder all the way to the ground divided by the energy usage of the device - you get a device with greater then 100% efficiency.
I hear he's not even a real captain
I hear he's not even a real Captain.
Come on, folks. Every thread on slashdot lately, it seems everyone tries to make analogies, and everyone else is correcting them.
So it's like when you write a book, and something in it is confusing, and then some editor scribbles something less confusing in the margin, but everyone still ends up confused?
My understanding of this 'obscure FCC limit' was that there were concerns over some of the frequencies used by high-speed modems (at the time) turning the phone lines into huge transmitters that trod on other frequencies (similar to the ham radio vs. IP over power lines thing).
It's an American cartoon series. I have no idea which episode the 'pedantism' comment is in though. I suspect if they did say 'pedantism', it was intended to get the pedants cringing. (How do you correct someone saying 'pedantism' without sounding pedantic?)
The U.N. as a body is, though, not actually accountable to anyone.
By the same logic, all democracy collapses. The goverment of the U.S. is accountable to its citizens, the the same way the the U.N. is accountable to its members. It's power comes from agreement between its member states, and is not vested in it by some higher authority.
You must understand that in a democratic organisation, such as the U.N., the power comes from those being governed, and therefore, if those being governed decide they don't like those doing the governing, they simply remove them. It's the ultimate form of accountability - it exists by consensus and therefore can be destroyed by consensus.
Does that work? I wouldv'e though better of the mods (please don't mod me insightful).
The only reason it is anyone's vocabulary is that you heard it on Family Guy, or you heard it from someone who heard it on Family Guy.
This is approaching the stupidest thing I've ever heard on slashdot. You should feel honoured.
And, logically, your argument falls flat on its face when you wonder - where did the writers from Family Guy hear it?
And if the writers from Family Guy made it up, how does anyone know what it means?
The problem is that a jury of your peers who are not bound by specifics in the law will tend to exact inconsistant penalties. A man who runs over a cute
dog owned by a little old lady may get a $1,000,000 fine, a man who runs over a mutt owned by a rich young man may get a $100 fine.
You would also have people motivated by the idea that since the law is too vague, they can weasel their way out of it if they're charismatic enough.
It'd lead to a general lack of faith in the law IMO. And that would lead a lot more injustice.
Apps that crash are apps that apps compiled specifically with the flag 'use SSE' and that don't generate code for non-SSE machines. Intel, it seems, hid the 'check for non-Intel' bit inside the checks for SSE and SSE2 - see this site for more detail.
Which means that Intel could produce AMD64 CPUs if they wanted!
From what I understand, the agreement didn't apply to the AMD x64 chips. Intel had to enter into a seperate agreement in order to get its hands on enough x64-tech to build the emulation layer used by the EMT64.