No they haven't, they've just said there are things on the published list that are not on the official list. They don't say that there's anything in the official list that's not on the published list.
I suspect it's been intentionally seeded.
It's kind of typical of politicians to say things in a way that sound like they're saying something else. You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?
Can't someone on one of the blocking ISPs test it? Try going to each of the URLs on the list, and see how many get through (one could even automate it with wget, and something to grab the status code, and throw the content away, right?)
It's not going to be 100% accurate as it's meant to be a few months old, but it'd give us some idea of how close it is to the real thing.
You know that being impeached is not the same as being found guilty, right? You do realise Clinton was acquitted, right?
It's like comparing two people who the public believe did something wrong: one has been ordered to stand trial, and acquitted; the other has not even been ordered to stand trial.
Intellectuals don't seek proof, they seek evidence. We sought it, and we received plenty. Sure, the footage could conceivably have been faked, but the mirrors, which are still testable today, could not have been unless they were already there, or they placed them there later. There are countless other pieces of evidence, making it hard to reach any other conclusion. The only alternative hypotheses that are supported by all of the evidence are so far fetched that the question becomes a no-brainer.
Conspiracy theorists seek proof because there is no such thing. They don't want to come to the logical conclusion, so they ignore the evidence, and require this thing you call "proof". You can't "prove" to someone that you exist (you might just be a figment of their imagination); all you can do is provide evidence, and let them decide on the strength of that evidence. If you can't prove something as obvious as your existence, then what hope do you have of proving something happened yesterday, or 40 years ago?
Even mathematical proof is meaningless in the absence of axioms, so can we please stop using that word?
Yes, saving is exactly what we need right now. Everyone should put their money in the bank, and not spend anything. That way, all your neighbours might go broke slightly before you do.
As for a simple flat tax, you realise what effect that would have on small business, don't you? Buy a product from a company that produces products from scratch, and you'll be paying 15% on that; buy a product from a shop that bought it from a manufacturer, who bought the components from another manufacturer, and there's going to be more tax in the price than anything else.
What are you going to suggest next? Perhaps the world could get out of its current predicament if the governments were to print more money.
Most countries have some equivalent to America's "fifth", and the rest of the video follows on logically from that assumption.
The point of the video can be roughly translated to: "If you are not legally obliged to talk to the police, then don't. It will never benefit you to do so, and even if you're innocent, it may actually hurt you."
Consider this case - had he not said anything, they'd have very little evidence tying him to the car. Now that he's admitted to being in the car, there's a much higher chance that he'll be convicted. Perhaps the police will be able to show that there could have only been one person in the car, or that the guy couldn't couldn't have possibly been travelling between the two points he claims to have been (someone might have seen him near the car at the time it was stolen), etc.
But then you have an ineffective filter, so why bother building it.
Load balancing is frequently implemented through DNS: Hand out a different one of your IPs to each DNS request in a rotating fashion to spread the load across a server farm; or hand out the local mirror when a request comes from an IP in a certain region.
Both of those load balancing systems will break your idea.
The efficient layout of Dvorak actually means there are fewer (and shorter) single-handed words. Not only are all the vowels on the left hand, but all the most frequently used consonants are on the right hand, making one-handed words uncommon.
The beauty of Dvorak is that you tend to swap between your hands many times within a word, and rarely get more than three characters in a row on the one hand.
In actual fact, it's not only the prefix that can be different. As I understand it, the differentiating chunk can be any integral multiple of 16-bytes, 8-byte aligned.
As you say though, this still doesn't help us. Since we can't change the original file, we can't change the data that is presented.
Most definitely not. The way the collision stuff works in the HTML example, is you put a hunk of 16 differing bytes at the beginning of the document (call the strings X and Y).
You then set the rest of the document to a big piece of javascript that says if the document begins with "X", then replace the document with "ABC", otherwise replace it with "XYZ". It lets you have two documents that render completely differently, but you need to have complete control over both documents. You can't easily generate an HTML document that has the same hash as an arbitrary document I give you.
You can't come up with a jpeg with a given md5 hash, because in generating the second document, you need to be able to modify the first.
The only thing you're going to be able to do in this case, is come up with two pictures of Kevin Rudd with differing metadata (more specifically, some random looking crap in the metadata) that happen to have the same MD5 hash.
The real story here is not that the government wants to censor the internet, but that the government has moved to gag a critic of the plan.
I think the anonymous reader in the final paragraph of the summary needs to read up a little on the MD5 vulnerability. It's possible to generate two files with the same hash containing a 16-byte block of differing code (where you have no control over the contents of that block in either file), but the rest of the file needs to be identical to the original. That's fine for dynamically generated HTML or even executables where a decision could be made on the contents of the varying block, but doing anything useful with jpeg is a pretty tough ask. Or are they suggesting we brute force it?
Agent Orange was heavily used in Vietnam. Some time later, a plane blew up over Lockerby in the UK. Now Vietnam is free from mad cow disease, while there have been many cases of BSE in the UK.
Clearly, it follows that the Libyans are to blame for BSE, and Agent Orange is a suitable preventative treatment, right? Or have I just listed a bunch of completely unrelated things.
Now reread what Mark Purdy says, and see if you can find a single scrap of evidence supporting a causal relationship between any of the points. You've even pointed out evidence *against* it (that he had infected cows), yet he glossed over that by adding another unrelated complication into the hypothesis.
There are literally millions of things that one can claim could have led to BSE, but without any supporting evidence, none of them are any more credible than another.
You've clearly never been the victim of a violent crime.
Punching a woman in the face to take her purse really can ruin her life.
Taking a couple of hundred dollars from a few thousand people is unlikely to have much lasting effect beyond the financial cost. Give them a big enough financial punishment, and they might start questioning the expected outcome of future crimes.
Sure, it's different once you start talking about white-collar criminals that take their victims' entire life savings, but that's not what we're talking about here.
It's not that simple. IPv6 already has a space for IPv4 mapping. While it's not an all-zero mapping, IPv4 traffic can be routed across IPv6 networks relatively easily, and transparently.
To move to your IPv5, you're still going to need to replace the core infrastructure, and change all the applications to support it. If you're going to do that, you might as well move to something that you're not going to need to replace again in a couple of decades, and something that's easy to route.
The big L3 switches that drive your traffic across the net are not just PC's with a couple of NICs on them; they are highly optimised hunks of silicon, that try to route packets before the CPU even knows a packet has arrived for processing.
It's a *lot* easier to decide which of the couple of hundred interfaces to direct traffic if that decision is being made primarily on a 4 byte pattern in a relatively known location. If you're going to go to 5-bytes, you might as well go to 64-bit. IPv6 has gone that little step further, using 128-bit addresses, but also taking out some of the "features" of IPv4 that lead to uncertainty in the positioning of addresses.
Who $hall decide the winner$ and lo$er$? The $oviet Union had te$t$ to $egregate people ba$ed on ability. They were abu$ed for politic$ and who do you know kind of $tuff. The National $ociali$t wanted to $egregate people ba$ed on their idea of racial purity. When you build two $y$tem$, one for "$mart" people and one for "dumb" people what you ultimately create i$ a cla$$ divi$ion and give $omeone the power to decide what kind of education people get.
There i$ no longer a need to be $tingy with education, $o your main motive$ no longer apply. Electronic publication make$ it po$$ible to $hare knowledge with everyone and no one intere$ted $hould ever be denied. Wealth come$ from the freedom to exploit re$ource$. Artificial re$triction$ and $carcity create poverty and re$entment. Hoarding knowledge i$ a crime.
There - fixed it for you. I felt something was missing...
Spammer waits for someone to request porn. Spammer's website makes a request to a captcha-protected site, and *immediately* sends a copy of the captcha image to the person requesting porn.
Porn requester enters the captcha phrase, which spammers site redirects to captcha-protected site. If the captcha-protected site allows the spammers request, then the spammer gives the user the porn, otherwise repeat.
Having dynamically generated captchas does not help here, as the spammer never needs to store captchas. As long as people want to download porn, spammers have a near-limitless ability to crack captchas.
You have to be kidding. I've seen enough crooked cops to know that can not be a good thing.
If your morals say that smoking pot is fine, then you should lobby to have the law changed, because I can assure you there's a cop out there somewhere whose morals say it's fine to turn a blind eye while his buddy has his way with you, before planting a few grams of heroin in your car because you didn't pay him for the privilege.
Will you accept a collect call from reality, Hatta?
Slashdot Mirror
No they haven't, they've just said there are things on the published list that are not on the official list. They don't say that there's anything in the official list that's not on the published list. I suspect it's been intentionally seeded. It's kind of typical of politicians to say things in a way that sound like they're saying something else. You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?
Can't someone on one of the blocking ISPs test it? Try going to each of the URLs on the list, and see how many get through (one could even automate it with wget, and something to grab the status code, and throw the content away, right?) It's not going to be 100% accurate as it's meant to be a few months old, but it'd give us some idea of how close it is to the real thing.
You know that being impeached is not the same as being found guilty, right? You do realise Clinton was acquitted, right? It's like comparing two people who the public believe did something wrong: one has been ordered to stand trial, and acquitted; the other has not even been ordered to stand trial.
Proof: I hate that word.
Intellectuals don't seek proof, they seek evidence. We sought it, and we received plenty. Sure, the footage could conceivably have been faked, but the mirrors, which are still testable today, could not have been unless they were already there, or they placed them there later. There are countless other pieces of evidence, making it hard to reach any other conclusion. The only alternative hypotheses that are supported by all of the evidence are so far fetched that the question becomes a no-brainer.
Conspiracy theorists seek proof because there is no such thing. They don't want to come to the logical conclusion, so they ignore the evidence, and require this thing you call "proof". You can't "prove" to someone that you exist (you might just be a figment of their imagination); all you can do is provide evidence, and let them decide on the strength of that evidence. If you can't prove something as obvious as your existence, then what hope do you have of proving something happened yesterday, or 40 years ago?
Even mathematical proof is meaningless in the absence of axioms, so can we please stop using that word?
Yes, saving is exactly what we need right now. Everyone should put their money in the bank, and not spend anything. That way, all your neighbours might go broke slightly before you do.
As for a simple flat tax, you realise what effect that would have on small business, don't you? Buy a product from a company that produces products from scratch, and you'll be paying 15% on that; buy a product from a shop that bought it from a manufacturer, who bought the components from another manufacturer, and there's going to be more tax in the price than anything else.
What are you going to suggest next? Perhaps the world could get out of its current predicament if the governments were to print more money.
Most countries have some equivalent to America's "fifth", and the rest of the video follows on logically from that assumption.
The point of the video can be roughly translated to: "If you are not legally obliged to talk to the police, then don't. It will never benefit you to do so, and even if you're innocent, it may actually hurt you."
Consider this case - had he not said anything, they'd have very little evidence tying him to the car. Now that he's admitted to being in the car, there's a much higher chance that he'll be convicted. Perhaps the police will be able to show that there could have only been one person in the car, or that the guy couldn't couldn't have possibly been travelling between the two points he claims to have been (someone might have seen him near the car at the time it was stolen), etc.
Nah. They have nothing to worry about.
But then you have an ineffective filter, so why bother building it.
Load balancing is frequently implemented through DNS: Hand out a different one of your IPs to each DNS request in a rotating fashion to spread the load across a server farm; or hand out the local mirror when a request comes from an IP in a certain region.
Both of those load balancing systems will break your idea.
I didn't know we were allowing Welsh words. I can do much better than that:
Llwcwllhwclls.
The efficient layout of Dvorak actually means there are fewer (and shorter) single-handed words. Not only are all the vowels on the left hand, but all the most frequently used consonants are on the right hand, making one-handed words uncommon.
The beauty of Dvorak is that you tend to swap between your hands many times within a word, and rarely get more than three characters in a row on the one hand.
In actual fact, it's not only the prefix that can be different. As I understand it, the differentiating chunk can be any integral multiple of 16-bytes, 8-byte aligned.
As you say though, this still doesn't help us. Since we can't change the original file, we can't change the data that is presented.
Most definitely not. The way the collision stuff works in the HTML example, is you put a hunk of 16 differing bytes at the beginning of the document (call the strings X and Y).
You then set the rest of the document to a big piece of javascript that says if the document begins with "X", then replace the document with "ABC", otherwise replace it with "XYZ". It lets you have two documents that render completely differently, but you need to have complete control over both documents. You can't easily generate an HTML document that has the same hash as an arbitrary document I give you.
You can't come up with a jpeg with a given md5 hash, because in generating the second document, you need to be able to modify the first.
The only thing you're going to be able to do in this case, is come up with two pictures of Kevin Rudd with differing metadata (more specifically, some random looking crap in the metadata) that happen to have the same MD5 hash.
The real story here is not that the government wants to censor the internet, but that the government has moved to gag a critic of the plan.
I think the anonymous reader in the final paragraph of the summary needs to read up a little on the MD5 vulnerability. It's possible to generate two files with the same hash containing a 16-byte block of differing code (where you have no control over the contents of that block in either file), but the rest of the file needs to be identical to the original. That's fine for dynamically generated HTML or even executables where a decision could be made on the contents of the varying block, but doing anything useful with jpeg is a pretty tough ask. Or are they suggesting we brute force it?
You missed a perfect opportunity for "Post 1.0!!!".
Alternatively, consider the following:
Agent Orange was heavily used in Vietnam. Some time later, a plane blew up over Lockerby in the UK. Now Vietnam is free from mad cow disease, while there have been many cases of BSE in the UK.
Clearly, it follows that the Libyans are to blame for BSE, and Agent Orange is a suitable preventative treatment, right? Or have I just listed a bunch of completely unrelated things.
Now reread what Mark Purdy says, and see if you can find a single scrap of evidence supporting a causal relationship between any of the points. You've even pointed out evidence *against* it (that he had infected cows), yet he glossed over that by adding another unrelated complication into the hypothesis.
There are literally millions of things that one can claim could have led to BSE, but without any supporting evidence, none of them are any more credible than another.
You've clearly never been the victim of a violent crime.
Punching a woman in the face to take her purse really can ruin her life.
Taking a couple of hundred dollars from a few thousand people is unlikely to have much lasting effect beyond the financial cost. Give them a big enough financial punishment, and they might start questioning the expected outcome of future crimes.
Sure, it's different once you start talking about white-collar criminals that take their victims' entire life savings, but that's not what we're talking about here.
It's not that simple. IPv6 already has a space for IPv4 mapping. While it's not an all-zero mapping, IPv4 traffic can be routed across IPv6 networks relatively easily, and transparently.
To move to your IPv5, you're still going to need to replace the core infrastructure, and change all the applications to support it. If you're going to do that, you might as well move to something that you're not going to need to replace again in a couple of decades, and something that's easy to route.
The big L3 switches that drive your traffic across the net are not just PC's with a couple of NICs on them; they are highly optimised hunks of silicon, that try to route packets before the CPU even knows a packet has arrived for processing.
It's a *lot* easier to decide which of the couple of hundred interfaces to direct traffic if that decision is being made primarily on a 4 byte pattern in a relatively known location. If you're going to go to 5-bytes, you might as well go to 64-bit. IPv6 has gone that little step further, using 128-bit addresses, but also taking out some of the "features" of IPv4 that lead to uncertainty in the positioning of addresses.
Who $hall decide the winner$ and lo$er$? The $oviet Union had te$t$ to $egregate people ba$ed on ability. They were abu$ed for politic$ and who do you know kind of $tuff. The National $ociali$t wanted to $egregate people ba$ed on their idea of racial purity. When you build two $y$tem$, one for "$mart" people and one for "dumb" people what you ultimately create i$ a cla$$ divi$ion and give $omeone the power to decide what kind of education people get.
There i$ no longer a need to be $tingy with education, $o your main motive$ no longer apply. Electronic publication make$ it po$$ible to $hare knowledge with everyone and no one intere$ted $hould ever be denied. Wealth come$ from the freedom to exploit re$ource$. Artificial re$triction$ and $carcity create poverty and re$entment. Hoarding knowledge i$ a crime.
There - fixed it for you. I felt something was missing...
--
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/7/22/ms/
NSFW Warning: Contains nudity.
Much like Itunes, there, more than likely, is something in there covering them if they shut down the servers.
Not only are you not a lawyer, but you are also guessing at the contents of the license. How do you actually survive in the real world?
I think you're missing something here.
Spammer waits for someone to request porn. Spammer's website makes a request to a captcha-protected site, and *immediately* sends a copy of the captcha image to the person requesting porn.
Porn requester enters the captcha phrase, which spammers site redirects to captcha-protected site. If the captcha-protected site allows the spammers request, then the spammer gives the user the porn, otherwise repeat.
Having dynamically generated captchas does not help here, as the spammer never needs to store captchas. As long as people want to download porn, spammers have a near-limitless ability to crack captchas.
Even better idea... They could just watch lots of crappy action movies, and take ideas out of those.
Things you see in movies are always acurately portrayed.
*whoosh*
You have to be kidding. I've seen enough crooked cops to know that can not be a good thing.
If your morals say that smoking pot is fine, then you should lobby to have the law changed, because I can assure you there's a cop out there somewhere whose morals say it's fine to turn a blind eye while his buddy has his way with you, before planting a few grams of heroin in your car because you didn't pay him for the privilege.
Will you accept a collect call from reality, Hatta?
Is that even possible?!?