The report boasts that the substantive provisions of the Act have mandated adoption of a number of commercial email "best practices" that many legitimate online marketers are now following. Second, the Act has provided law enforcement agencies and ISPs with an additional tool to use when bringing suit against spammers.
It then went on to offer Congressmen a pre-approved war loan, before asking for its help in liberating $25,000,000 (TWENTY-FIVE MILLION) from terrorism.
That was my first thought too. Throw in their actions around Google Print (where they actually have attracted a lawsuit) and I start to think they've got some daring business plan here. Either they're going to lose a chunk of money or they're going to do some trailblaizing while getting excellent press coverage along the way.
So you're saying that there'd be an identification sequence which goes thusly:
1. I send my ID. 2. I get data. 3. I perform an operation on data sent to me by random punter. 4. Random punter can therefore tell that it's correct.
So what's to stop random punter from doing the following:
5. Random punter sends my ID to the bank. 6. Random punter gets data. 7. Random punter (who knows what valid output is) performs an operation... 8. Profit! (Or theft, depending on your viewpoint).
It's called a sneaker network. The best way to protect your digital data is not to hook it up to anything. If the Pentagon has nuclear launch codes on anything connected to the internet, they're far dumber than I ever imagined.
Agreed. I read a number of C programming books as an undergrad, and K&R was the clearest by a massve margin. So many of them are padded with stuff you don't need. Even now, if I need to look up some syntax or something, I'll go to K&R before any of the telephone directory sized alternatives at hand.
to sum up my impression, if you liked the book, I think you'll like the film. If you didn't like the book, I doubt you will like the film. If you were indifferent to the book, you might like the film due to all the fantastic creatures. I thought the effects were pretty incredible.
Where do you end it though? Every operating system going has tonnes of security holes. Every browser has them, too. Certainly, a higher standard of software security than currently exists could be achieved without much cost, but I doubt you could make something truely secure.
To continue our little car analogy, no matter how good the tire, it'll still fail in time and it'll still skid in the rain.
There's a big difference between what you're suggesting and car safety. For a start, how about Honda get sued if it can be shown that I can break into one of their cars? Smashy-smashy.
This kind of suggestion has been mooted on/. before, and the concensus every time has been that it would, for the most part, make software prohibitively expensive. Doesn't mean Microsoft should give / priviliges to the user by default, but there you go.:)
It has a far, far bigger effect. I've got a plugin in Firefox that tells me the page rank of any page I'm viewing. For the main page of slashdot, it's 9 (I've only ever seen 10 for huge commercial sites - probably costs big money). In here, it's 0.
The brain cells used in that were grown in a dish - no need to take a bone saw to a rat - just extract a couple of cells - he'd lose more falling on his head.
And predictable pseudo-AIs (chess computers) are proving a match for "unpredictable" Grandmasters. Organic brains exhibit predictability too - think of what's called 'playing style'.
Why did they choose eight 'bits' for their quantum 'byte'? For historical reasons, or is there a logical reason to choose eight? Why not seven, or 42?
42 eh? Good to see someone else spot the Innsbruck connection.:) My (unfortunately not very informed) guess it's a convenience thing. Compatability? The fact that it's a power of two could be convenient for architectural reasons. Maybe even just because they find it easier to think of information in chunks that size, i.e. habit.
Does anyone have a better understanding of the technical issues involved?
Rothbard got it right with his ideas on patents. The whole issue could be avoided with contractual agreements. You agree to take the medicine and not reverse engineer it. Any violation is breaking of contract would be delt with in Civil court. it could be applied to anything that couild be patented.
But someone on the internet wrote that there wasn't any evidence for it - it must be true!
I have sympathy for his position, but I'd rather see Wikipedia dealing with it as they have than the alternative TFA seems to be hinting at. Imagine you could be sued for a comment made on/.
The reason computer chess hasn't been the useful AI benchmark it was hoped to be is that the approach taken to creating chess-playing computers has been very much brute force. A top human grandmaster evaluates something like 3 or 4 positions per second - the same rate as a weak player, only smarter. A chess-playing computer of equivalent playing strength evaluates millions of positions per second.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in LA once. I went to an ATM to get some money.
"Would you like another transaction?"
My options:
"No thanks"
"Sure!"
Sure? What happened to "yes"?
Next, they'll give it a personality. A cheerful personality.
At this rate, Douglas Adams will overtake Clarke as the SF writer who predicts the future.
Yeah, and Smith's bringing his dupes.
The report boasts that the substantive provisions of the Act have mandated adoption of a number of commercial email "best practices" that many legitimate online marketers are now following. Second, the Act has provided law enforcement agencies and ISPs with an additional tool to use when bringing suit against spammers.
It then went on to offer Congressmen a pre-approved war loan, before asking for its help in liberating $25,000,000 (TWENTY-FIVE MILLION) from terrorism.
Can someone tell me exactly what Riemann's hypothesis tells us? Surely you can check with that (assuming it's true ;))?
That was my first thought too. Throw in their actions around Google Print (where they actually have attracted a lawsuit) and I start to think they've got some daring business plan here. Either they're going to lose a chunk of money or they're going to do some trailblaizing while getting excellent press coverage along the way.
So you're saying that there'd be an identification sequence which goes thusly:
1. I send my ID.
2. I get data.
3. I perform an operation on data sent to me by random punter.
4. Random punter can therefore tell that it's correct.
So what's to stop random punter from doing the following:
5. Random punter sends my ID to the bank.
6. Random punter gets data.
7. Random punter (who knows what valid output is) performs an operation...
8. Profit! (Or theft, depending on your viewpoint).
never call the librarian 'monkey'
OOK!
While we're on the literary references trail, they're not scientists and mice - they're witches and children!
It's called a sneaker network. The best way to protect your digital data is not to hook it up to anything. If the Pentagon has nuclear launch codes on anything connected to the internet, they're far dumber than I ever imagined.
Agreed. I read a number of C programming books as an undergrad, and K&R was the clearest by a massve margin. So many of them are padded with stuff you don't need. Even now, if I need to look up some syntax or something, I'll go to K&R before any of the telephone directory sized alternatives at hand.
to sum up my impression, if you liked the book, I think you'll like the film. If you didn't like the book, I doubt you will like the film. If you were indifferent to the book, you might like the film due to all the fantastic creatures. I thought the effects were pretty incredible.
What if you haven't read the book?
Oh, good Spaghetti Monster, you're not suggesting they add a scanner?
Where do you end it though? Every operating system going has tonnes of security holes. Every browser has them, too. Certainly, a higher standard of software security than currently exists could be achieved without much cost, but I doubt you could make something truely secure.
To continue our little car analogy, no matter how good the tire, it'll still fail in time and it'll still skid in the rain.
Honestly, if they can get the 75 bus route near me to actually turn up half the time, they can use my forehead as advertising space.*
* Not a garuantee.
It's in there alright. It's under $sys$.
There's a big difference between what you're suggesting and car safety. For a start, how about Honda get sued if it can be shown that I can break into one of their cars? Smashy-smashy.
/. before, and the concensus every time has been that it would, for the most part, make software prohibitively expensive. Doesn't mean Microsoft should give / priviliges to the user by default, but there you go. :)
This kind of suggestion has been mooted on
Man, I wish I had mod points to add to that post. Funniest thing I've read on /. all week.
It has a far, far bigger effect. I've got a plugin in Firefox that tells me the page rank of any page I'm viewing. For the main page of slashdot, it's 9 (I've only ever seen 10 for huge commercial sites - probably costs big money). In here, it's 0.
As ever, this will only fool idiots. The problem is the same as ever - too many idiots.
The brain cells used in that were grown in a dish - no need to take a bone saw to a rat - just extract a couple of cells - he'd lose more falling on his head.
And predictable pseudo-AIs (chess computers) are proving a match for "unpredictable" Grandmasters. Organic brains exhibit predictability too - think of what's called 'playing style'.
Why did they choose eight 'bits' for their quantum 'byte'? For historical reasons, or is there a logical reason to choose eight? Why not seven, or 42?
:) My (unfortunately not very informed) guess it's a convenience thing. Compatability? The fact that it's a power of two could be convenient for architectural reasons. Maybe even just because they find it easier to think of information in chunks that size, i.e. habit.
42 eh? Good to see someone else spot the Innsbruck connection.
Does anyone have a better understanding of the technical issues involved?
Rothbard got it right with his ideas on patents. The whole issue could be avoided with contractual agreements. You agree to take the medicine and not reverse engineer it. Any violation is breaking of contract would be delt with in Civil court. it could be applied to anything that couild be patented.
3 6257&tid=172
You agree use this software, provided you do not reverse engineer it...
How much weight would a contract like that hold?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15/03
But someone on the internet wrote that there wasn't any evidence for it - it must be true!
/.
I have sympathy for his position, but I'd rather see Wikipedia dealing with it as they have than the alternative TFA seems to be hinting at. Imagine you could be sued for a comment made on
The reason computer chess hasn't been the useful AI benchmark it was hoped to be is that the approach taken to creating chess-playing computers has been very much brute force. A top human grandmaster evaluates something like 3 or 4 positions per second - the same rate as a weak player, only smarter. A chess-playing computer of equivalent playing strength evaluates millions of positions per second.
Yeah, 640K ought to be enough for anybody. ;)