I wouldn't, at least. I don't think that the extra time of trying to remove a rootkit would be worth it, especially since those things are so insinuated into the system usually that you can't remove them. I'd just run a scan on all the stuff they need to backup, back it up, and then FFR.
Maybe they haven't really cracked the code, they're just putting out false information to try to get the Israelis to switch to a different code. This would cause some confusion, thereby giving Hezbollah an edge.
Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer--and it's a page promoting a public TV show called Newton's Apple. After that it's all Mac-related links until Fiona Apple's home page. You have to sift through 50 results before you reach a link that deals with apples that grow on trees: the home page for the Washington State Apple Growers Association. To a certain extent, this probably reflects the interest of people searching as well as those linking, but is the world really that much more interested in Apple Computer than in old-fashioned apples?
Whereas if you search for "apples", you get sites that are related to the fruit on the FRONT PAGE! And if you think about it, searching for "apples" makes more sense than searching for "apple". makes sense: people want to know about apples in general, not a specific apple.
He's just not comparing apples to apples here.;-)
At first, you needed an invite to get GMail, didn't you? And these days, everyone has an invite. Maybe MSN is doing the same sort of thing: making it invite-only in the beginning to make it seem like it's the new cool thing, then giving everyone so many invites that it effectively becomes public. Just my 2 cents, though.
Actually, some people think that the question might be how long MS can withstand Google's onslaught.
I personally believe that, while it is good to see Google competing with MS, we need to be careful. We don't know if they might become the next evil corporation. So far, they're staying good, but only time will tell.
What if you're looking for your keys in the dark? Then that material won't work at all, because you won't be able to see it anyway. However, that is a good idea.
I agree with you. However you can always scale it up to 'stopping the nth biggest spammer' instead of 'stopping the nth message', in which case you get that very few spammers will be stopped, although this may stop millions of spam messages/day.
Open Source is designed so that everyone can see the code. If you can see the code, then you should be able to tweak it and make your own version of it, as long as you still give credit where it's due. Indeed, look at all the variations on *nix/Linux:
Suse
RedHat
*BSD
Knoppix
Mandrake
And there are definitely more that I haven't included. If Safari diverges form KHTML, it's fine with me.
Suppose that the cost of stopping a spam e-mail at the source can be quantified, and same for the benefit for doing same (a stretch, but it's necessary for the following discussion). Then, society will stop spam e-mails as long as the cost of stopping the nth, (its Marginal Cost, or MC) is less than or equal to the benefit for stopping it (its Marginal Benefit, or MB). The MB is relatively low for stopping just one e-mail, since many filters stop these anyway. The MC, on the other hand, is relatively high, as we have seen. Therefore, the MC will catch up to the MB very fast, and very little spam will be stopped.
Mathematica, a mathematics package, can handle 2,100,000,000+ bit numbers (I don't have the exact figure), but I don't think that that's the sort of thing you're looking for.
If you write a piece of code for one OS app, then all the other ones can use it. So, in effect, you're getting paid $x by company X to use it, and $0 by companies Y,Z,A, et al.
At first blush, the reasonable solution would be to increase bounties. However, you then get company X paying for everyone else. And the solution of having each company pay you would no longer make it open source.
Now, I am aware that a piece of code written for one particular program might not work for another (different function names, etc.) But these differences seem to be relatively easy to go over, and any well-written piece of code shouldn't even have these problems anyway.
So the demand curve is going to be pretty steep, since a feature doesn't mean as much if everyone has it. The fact that bounties might not get paid if someone else completes it first will make the supply curve pretty shallow. So you get very few bounties getting fulfilled with a price pretty close to the amount developers are willing to pay.
Of course, such a simplistic model can't possibly account for the full impact, but you get the picture.
The problem is, no matter how good your algorithm is, short of an AI, it'll either miss some trick (pointless javascript) or downgrade a page that uses something legitimately (white-on-white text for text-based-game hint sites.) And an AI will still make mistakes.
Almost any algorithm can be spoofed fairly easily: inserting very small text that's the same color as the background. Then whenever they want Google to think they've updated, they change the text. The viewer doesn't tell the difference, but the source code changes. Or they could just use comments in Javascript, or just create Javascript that never gets used.
Also, a page with frames might get penalized since its content doesn't change, although the content of the frames may change frequently.
Slashdot Mirror
The Consumerist has reported that the free 18 months is false (original story)
Porn sites technically must require proof of age, and none of THEM ever get any visits from children.
I wouldn't, at least. I don't think that the extra time of trying to remove a rootkit would be worth it, especially since those things are so insinuated into the system usually that you can't remove them. I'd just run a scan on all the stuff they need to backup, back it up, and then FFR.
You mean you actually think the US government cares about security? How naïve.
Maybe they haven't really cracked the code, they're just putting out false information to try to get the Israelis to switch to a different code. This would cause some confusion, thereby giving Hezbollah an edge.
DAMMIT! Wrong button. I meant "And then, Cliches on a Motherfucking Chip".
And the day after the day after tomorrow it's Proper Capitalization in Titles on a Motherfucking Chip! And then, Clichs
At first, you needed an invite to get GMail, didn't you? And these days, everyone has an invite. Maybe MSN is doing the same sort of thing: making it invite-only in the beginning to make it seem like it's the new cool thing, then giving everyone so many invites that it effectively becomes public. Just my 2 cents, though.
Actually, some people think that the question might be how long MS can withstand Google's onslaught. I personally believe that, while it is good to see Google competing with MS, we need to be careful. We don't know if they might become the next evil corporation. So far, they're staying good, but only time will tell.
What if you're looking for your keys in the dark? Then that material won't work at all, because you won't be able to see it anyway. However, that is a good idea.
Mirrordot link: http://mirrordot.org/stories/fc31868e7adf08fb5742b 8ec20ecfda9/index.html
Take the Fifth Amendment, if you're in America. Basically, says you choose to not answer because you would be incriminating yourself.
Why wouldn't the payload data be encrypted in the first place?
How would you communicate how this is encrypted? You'd need another payload data, which would probably be vulnerable to the same attack.
I agree with you. However you can always scale it up to 'stopping the nth biggest spammer' instead of 'stopping the nth message', in which case you get that very few spammers will be stopped, although this may stop millions of spam messages/day.
- Suse
- RedHat
- *BSD
- Knoppix
- Mandrake
And there are definitely more that I haven't included. If Safari diverges form KHTML, it's fine with me.Suppose that the cost of stopping a spam e-mail at the source can be quantified, and same for the benefit for doing same (a stretch, but it's necessary for the following discussion). Then, society will stop spam e-mails as long as the cost of stopping the nth, (its Marginal Cost, or MC) is less than or equal to the benefit for stopping it (its Marginal Benefit, or MB).
The MB is relatively low for stopping just one e-mail, since many filters stop these anyway. The MC, on the other hand, is relatively high, as we have seen. Therefore, the MC will catch up to the MB very fast, and very little spam will be stopped.
Or maybe they're not really bothering to verify it, but instead quoting each other, since if one of them says it, it must be true!
Here's what I was thinking: an add-on that turns your PSP into the non-touch screen on the DS and has a plug for DS games and a touchscreen.
Mathematica, a mathematics package, can handle 2,100,000,000+ bit numbers (I don't have the exact figure), but I don't think that that's the sort of thing you're looking for.
If you write a piece of code for one OS app, then all the other ones can use it. So, in effect, you're getting paid $x by company X to use it, and $0 by companies Y,Z,A, et al.
At first blush, the reasonable solution would be to increase bounties. However, you then get company X paying for everyone else. And the solution of having each company pay you would no longer make it open source.
Now, I am aware that a piece of code written for one particular program might not work for another (different function names, etc.) But these differences seem to be relatively easy to go over, and any well-written piece of code shouldn't even have these problems anyway.
So the demand curve is going to be pretty steep, since a feature doesn't mean as much if everyone has it. The fact that bounties might not get paid if someone else completes it first will make the supply curve pretty shallow. So you get very few bounties getting fulfilled with a price pretty close to the amount developers are willing to pay.
Of course, such a simplistic model can't possibly account for the full impact, but you get the picture.
Ok, fine. Background color is #000000, use text colored #010101, or make it #FFFFFF but put it in a place where most people won't see it.
The problem is, no matter how good your algorithm is, short of an AI, it'll either miss some trick (pointless javascript) or downgrade a page that uses something legitimately (white-on-white text for text-based-game hint sites.) And an AI will still make mistakes.
Google knows about which? The frames, the white on white small text, or all of it? Please clarify.
Almost any algorithm can be spoofed fairly easily: inserting very small text that's the same color as the background. Then whenever they want Google to think they've updated, they change the text. The viewer doesn't tell the difference, but the source code changes. Or they could just use comments in Javascript, or just create Javascript that never gets used.
Also, a page with frames might get penalized since its content doesn't change, although the content of the frames may change frequently.