Although, I'm still desperately trying to find the OS those kids used in "Hackers" that soley consisted of animated fractals spinning around their screens. r33t!
I have concluded that one of the reasons we see waves of synth revivial occurring every few years is because that is how long it takes someone to 'grok' their synthesizer
At first read of that, I thought you were saying (more or less) "..it is not until synth players visually can see the waves produced by their synth, do they 'grok' their synthesizer."
As a synth player myself, and a very visual person, this made me realise a visual display representing the wave (and envelope, etc) being produced would significantly reduce the complication you speak of when using a synth. A type of oscilloscope that adjusts as you tweak the knobs/sliders. Possibly in your next design?
On the one hand, you trust your friends, so things your friends clicked on might be interesting for you to know about.
Obviously, you've never had a friend relentlessly forward you email chain letters insisting "I know you hate these... but this one is funny/great/interesting/etc..."
Det. Thorn: It's people. Google is made out of people. They're making our search engine out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for answers. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!
Hatcher: I promise, Tiger. I promise. I'll tell the exchange.
Det. Thorn: You tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher. You've gotta tell them! Google is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!
I don't see how this is any different than comparing two strings, except that you are creating an unnecessary oppurtunity for user error.
Any image can be converted into a string (concatinating the RGB values of each pixel of the image). Comparing two strings is an exact science, while having a user visually compare two pictures is considerably more dangerous. If the application converts the expected and resultant pictures to strings, and then compares them, the result is exact. Obviously, you could then remove the need for an image altogether.
In an extreme case (depending on the strenght of the algorithm), if the difference between two images is one pixel, most everyone would miss that.
Agreed, but the "hacker" could be an employee who managed to discover the vulnerability before anyone on the outside. In such a case, the "non-trivial time and money" cost is inevitable, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a "harm." In the same respect, the employee might be a malicious "cracker," and this is where the lines are drawn.
Harmless? No. In either case, a compromised system should be fully audited and rebuilt
The fact that your system is vulnerable to exploitation is neither the hacker's, nor the cracker's fault.
I believe the point the parent was trying to make is that you would probably prefer the "hacker" rather than the "cracker" in the system based on what they would supposedly do with said "compromised information."
I was listening to a morning radio station about the DNC list, and a lady called in saying her husband would ask the same thing, "what color panties are you wearing?"
The funny part though was when one of the DJ's suggested her husband just told her it was a telemarketer, when in fact is was more likely a different type of call altogether...
I couldn't agree with you more, but it came to mind, and thought I would put it in writing. It is rather interesting, though, how the art of language recognition has drastically improved over time.
Keeping with the first/last letter scheme, it appears that when the letters close to the beginning are moved all the way to the end, and vice versa, it tends to become much more confusing. If you keep the letters in proximity to their origional location, it becomes much easier. Using the quote from the post, if you keep the letters from the first half in the first half but scrambled and the letters in the latter half in the latter half but scrambled it becomes much easier to decipher. This is keeping with how most people create typos, such as accidentally reversing letters. It would be rather strange for someone to accidentally type the second character in the word second to last.
Example: telephone == tleepnohe == t[lee]p[noh]e
notice 'p' is in the center so unmoved. The quote from the post would be as follows:
"Acocrnidg to crad crraniyg lguniitscis peorsfsoalnis at an unnaemd, ueivnitsry in Birtsih Cuolmiba, and ctonrray to the dbuiuos clamis of the ucnietd reesrcah, a smilpe, mheacicnal ivneirson of ietnnral caahrtcers apperas sfufineict to cnofsue the erevadyy oonlkoer."
defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
The judgment relies upon Washington state's tough anti-spam law, which says each spam can cost the sender $500. Although Judge Bruce Hilyer was convinced Featherston received 58,000 illegal e-mails, the plaintiff only asked for $250,000, rather than the $29 million to which he could have been entitled.
The defendants are no strangers to legal troubles sparked by their spamming. In March of last year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against the two, accusing them of...promot[ing] a "get rich quick" chain mail scheme via spam and Web sites, promising participants they'd receive $10,000 in "gifts" within a "short period."
The defendant should have taken the $29 million. These spammers have apparently been brought to court before for breaking the law, with no apparent change in their behaviour. Depending how well their scheme worked, $250,000 may not put them in their place, as it could be pocket change. I would have taken the full amount due by law proving to illegal spammers that it will not be tolerated.
I agree with the judge's decision. If a user consciously decides to install this popup service, I don't see how it differs, for example, from installing mozilla, and comparing prices on pricewatch.com.
I don't know if this software is commonly bundled with other software so that a common user isn't aware they are installing it. Regardless, this has nothing to do with a supposed intended purpose. Just as p2p shouldn't be made illegal for a side effect. Since when did price comparison become illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
Good point.
Unless, of course, they are directly contributing to the fight against terrorists.
Although, I'm still desperately trying to find the OS those kids used in "Hackers" that soley consisted of animated fractals spinning around their screens. r33t!
You are still in control.
Turn off cookies, or something of the likes.
If you don't trust them, don't use GMail.
.. the infamous "Star Wars Kid" puts golf ball retriever up for sale on eBay...
I tried to read the linked article with the new Opera release, but it said it only supports IE ...
I have concluded that one of the reasons we see waves of synth revivial occurring every few years is because that is how long it takes someone to 'grok' their synthesizer
At first read of that, I thought you were saying (more or less) "..it is not until synth players visually can see the waves produced by their synth, do they 'grok' their synthesizer."
As a synth player myself, and a very visual person, this made me realise a visual display representing the wave (and envelope, etc) being produced would significantly reduce the complication you speak of when using a synth. A type of oscilloscope that adjusts as you tweak the knobs/sliders. Possibly in your next design?
But then we would have a build a bunch of machines to ask the right questions.
Disconcerting, because this is an actual statement from TFA:
We need to respect copyright, if do the same if we expect respect the world to respect the GPL.
huh?
On the one hand, you trust your friends, so things your friends clicked on might be interesting for you to know about.
... but this one is funny/great/interesting/etc..."
Obviously, you've never had a friend relentlessly forward you email chain letters insisting "I know you hate these
So, did he install and get the SB0410 working on his iMac?
I believe this is the Mike Batt version.
Here's mine:
[(B*U)/L*L-(S+H-I)]+T
Deduce for yourself.
Det. Thorn: It's people. Google is made out of people. They're making our search engine out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for answers. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!
Hatcher: I promise, Tiger. I promise. I'll tell the exchange.
Det. Thorn: You tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher. You've gotta tell them! Google is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!
I don't see how this is any different than comparing two strings, except that you are creating an unnecessary oppurtunity for user error.
Any image can be converted into a string (concatinating the RGB values of each pixel of the image). Comparing two strings is an exact science, while having a user visually compare two pictures is considerably more dangerous. If the application converts the expected and resultant pictures to strings, and then compares them, the result is exact. Obviously, you could then remove the need for an image altogether.
In an extreme case (depending on the strenght of the algorithm), if the difference between two images is one pixel, most everyone would miss that.
The answer is simple.
Goatse in ASCII
Agreed, but the "hacker" could be an employee who managed to discover the vulnerability before anyone on the outside. In such a case, the "non-trivial time and money" cost is inevitable, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a "harm." In the same respect, the employee might be a malicious "cracker," and this is where the lines are drawn.
Harmless? No. In either case, a compromised system should be fully audited and rebuilt
The fact that your system is vulnerable to exploitation is neither the hacker's, nor the cracker's fault.
I believe the point the parent was trying to make is that you would probably prefer the "hacker" rather than the "cracker" in the system based on what they would supposedly do with said "compromised information."
The funny part though was when one of the DJ's suggested her husband just told her it was a telemarketer, when in fact is was more likely a different type of call altogether...
Sorry, here in the United States anyway... (you insensitive cod...)
Because there is a good chance nudity will be regulated and censored, I am in a great market for product placement!
I couldn't agree with you more, but it came to mind, and thought I would put it in writing. It is rather interesting, though, how the art of language recognition has drastically improved over time.
Example: telephone == tleepnohe == t[lee]p[noh]e
notice 'p' is in the center so unmoved. The quote from the post would be as follows:
"Acocrnidg to crad crraniyg lguniitscis peorsfsoalnis at an unnaemd, ueivnitsry in Birtsih Cuolmiba, and ctonrray to the dbuiuos clamis of the ucnietd reesrcah, a smilpe, mheacicnal ivneirson of ietnnral caahrtcers apperas sfufineict to cnofsue the erevadyy oonlkoer."
Surely you jest,
:
but according to this (or this)
defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
he _is_ a terrorist
er.. are you being facetious? Or are you talking about the one that sells music...
The defendants are no strangers to legal troubles sparked by their spamming. In March of last year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against the two, accusing them of...promot[ing] a "get rich quick" chain mail scheme via spam and Web sites, promising participants they'd receive $10,000 in "gifts" within a "short period."
The defendant should have taken the $29 million. These spammers have apparently been brought to court before for breaking the law, with no apparent change in their behaviour. Depending how well their scheme worked, $250,000 may not put them in their place, as it could be pocket change. I would have taken the full amount due by law proving to illegal spammers that it will not be tolerated.
I don't know if this software is commonly bundled with other software so that a common user isn't aware they are installing it. Regardless, this has nothing to do with a supposed intended purpose. Just as p2p shouldn't be made illegal for a side effect. Since when did price comparison become illegal?