And yet how to reconcile this with the recent information that there are more women using the Internet than men? I mean, it's at least plausible that girls/women find the Internet useful but don't have the desire to alter its functionality at all. They may simply be users. Btu one would have to think, given the statistics, that a certain fraction would like to be able to alter functionality (i.e. build web apps, modify current ones, etc.).
Better yet, why don't they just work out a deal to use the patents? Isn't that the idea of patents, to allow the patent holder to profit from the patent? I know making a deal with Verizon is like selling your soul to the Devil's unsavory second cousin, but if it's the difference between the end of your business and staying afloat...
Indeed. If they want to attract women to CS, it needs to start not at the college level, but at the junior high school and high school level, where girls are discouraged from becoming proficient at math and science by mainly male teachers.
Unfortunately, the school forgot that the clocks had switched to Daylight Saving Time that morning. The time stamps left on the hotline were adjusted by an hour after Day Light Savings causing Webb's call to logged as the same time the bomb threat was placed. Webb, who's never even had a detention in his life, had actually made his call an hour before the bomb threat was placed.
These are the people we want teaching our children? Or we want our children to become/emulate? I'm not sure which is more shocking -- the fact that they jumped to conclusions based on a couple of pieces of evidence or the fact that it took 12 days for some bright person to remember the switch in Daylight Time.
But instead, they decide the law doesn't apply to them anymore and use as many underhanded and illegal tactics as they can. Now it doesn't matter if the RIAA is right, nobody in their right mind could possibly side with them.
Sounds an awful lot like a divorce. And in this case, I'm sure the majority of Americans would appreciate being divorced from the RIAA.
...trap for the unsophisticated Web user. I mean, if you get an email from someone you don't know telling you to update your anti-virus, wouldn't you think that's a little suspicious?
I don't get much spam, because I really don't let my email address float out in the wild, so this kind of thing never bother me. But it just makes me wonder when someone is going to take some initiative and try to build a better system, to minimize the human element as much as possible.
Yes, this incessant pushing of the technology/standards envelope is creating a lot of disjoint, stilted, and otherwise unreadable web sites. It used to be web pages were mainly HTML with a few SSI thrown in for good measure; now they are over-burdened with flashy graphics, tricky menus (god how rollovers are getting out of hand!), and a lack of decent content. I mean, I go to a web site to find information I'm looking for. In the old days, you could do that -- now content is so snarled in meaningless fluff that have the time I have to search the source code just to find what I'm looking for.
This is one of those occasions where you have to admire someone's pluck... I guess he has an overwhelming desire to be hassled by the US Government. This is important work, but it's definitely going to get the black suit, dark sunglasses crowd in a tizzy.
Why does BoA allow users to get access to their SiteKey image after answering her security questions? The reason is simple. Normally, BoA knows to present the right SiteKey image to a user because it recognizes the computer that user logs in from as belonging to the user in question. This is done using secure cookies. But what happens if there are no cookies? Say that the user wants to log in to her BoA account from a computer that she has not successfully used to connect to BoA's website with before. Before sending the SiteKey image to the user, BoA will require the user to provide some evidence of her identity - the answers to the security questions. Once BoA receives these, and has verified that they are correct, then it will send the user's SiteKey image to the user. That allows the user to verify that it is really communicating with BoA, and not an impostor, which in turn, provides the user with the security to enter her password.
This is the loophole that we use in our demonstration. Through deceit, we convince the user to enter her security question, and thus get the SiteKey image.
No matter what kind of security system you devise, you cannot take out the human element. The Internet seems like magic to people - it knows them, it knows things about them, people can find them from all over the planet. The average user is not curious enough to learn how this is accomplished, paranoid enough to distrust anything at first glance, or savvy enough to protect themselves. Bank of America is kidding itself if it thinks the SiteKey is any kind of deterrent to a hacker.
However, Lowry continued, "In this specific case, the ClearType font is supplied as part of the freetype2 package; last summer the upstream maintainer changed the package's default settings to disable Clear Type and thereby avoid possibly relevant Microsoft patents. So, consistent with Novell's preexisting practices and current policy, Novell is using the default settings established by the upstream maintainer. Distributions such as Fedora made the same choice. This issue only came up in the summer of 2006 and therefore older distributions are using the previous default (enabled ClearType)."
So it would seem that the disabling of FreeType is more coincident than anything else. It's possible for parallel processes to affect the same thing but have no overt connection.
If my legal adversaries want to find out that I searched converting 3.5 tablespoons to teaspoons while cooking on Saturday, good for them. The rest of it is protected.
Which brings up an interesting idea - fake search patterns. On the one hand, you could perform all sorts of irrelevant, meaningless searches to clutter up your search record. On the other hand, imagine you wanted to make it appear that someone was searching for certain information, information that might prove incriminating. Assuming you could somehow gain access to their computer(s), wouldn't it be possible to "plant" searches in a person's search history? How many people who use the major search engines every day know they are being tracked?
I'm beginning to see the TLD system as more of an inconvenient waste of time thanks to initiatives like this. It will challenge hackers and make the average Net user even more gullible and trusting, thinking the.safe tld somehow confers mystical powers on the website.
Domains are easier to remember than IP addresses, but in that convenience lurks the bugaboos we see now. The average user clicks links blindly -- he/she has no idea that the URL beneath the anchor tag may not be going where they think it is. They are certainly not savvy enough to check before they click, hence the ease of phishing. I think it's safe to say ICANN is starting to make things worse, not better.
Until either a) the average Net user's savvy increases and they take steps to protect their personal systems or b) systems are developed that don't require the user's interaction to provide adequate defense, the number of bots will increase steadily. Bots using the same base code but with variations will always be easier to track than completely new strains, but I think at this point the mechanisms for bot injection are so well known that that this will end up being the best way to control them. And even that will simply force the black hats to come up with new and inventive ways of duping people. The end point of the power of the botnet starts with the user taking control of their box and learning to defend it.
Well, this is for the New York City Civil Court (your mileage may vary), but it would seem that it is up to the server to find the person to be served. I really don't think they can legislate that the person being served make themselves more available, sonce there's no real way to know who will receive a subpoena ahead of time.
Can't watch it anymore. It may have appealed to the teenage me, but now you just wince to see David Hasselhoff bantering with the car. Of course, mind you, the car was far more intelligent than Pamela Anderson...
IANAL, but it seems that by taking this step, they are making the appeal process more favorable, as they will be able to point to this and go, "See, we're not infringing on the patents anymore!" The main suit will still go forward, as Verizon can continue to claim damages for the period that Vonage was infringing, but no further. This might even lower the amount of damages awarded. That and Vonage gets to keep operating.
I saw this lawsuit as a cheap and dirty way for Verizon to work its way into Vonage, and I think Vonage has foiled them for the moment. It still remains for the courts to decide, so anything is possible.
No, he's saying he found your key under the mat and let himself in to have a look around, believing you're hiding secret spaceship technology somewhere in your house that you're not sharing with the rest of the world. The man is a loon, pure and simple; I suspect the Brits will be more than happy to extradite him, simply to be rid of him.
Here we can look at that and say, "Psssh, effing New Jersey" but in a lot of places in Europe they absolutely believe that we would fry this joker for a non-violent crime.
Also going to prove what a wonderful job "The Sopranos" has done for New Jersey's image... I'm going to start a campaign to get the motto "The Garden State" changed to "The Whacking State" or "Don't F**k With Us".
What the Constitution says should be the law, not what people say it says.
The problem with that is, just whose definitions do you use? The Constitution, like any written document, is subject to interpretation simply because while individual words have a limited range of meaning, their many and varied combinations can be interpreted along a wide spectrum. That's why we have a court system: to try and create a reasonable definition of a law in any given circumstance. Two opposing sides in an argument will generally insist on an interpretation biased toward their definitions. It's up to the court system to try and create consensus, and where not possible or practicable, to enforce a definition based on the court's definitions. And so then you have appeals, as people disagree with the court's definitions, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter in most legal cases.
The same problem exists with the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill. Seems straightforward. But thou shalt not kill what? Men? Women? Dogs? Cat? Ameobas? Fetuses? You can take a simple 4-word phrase and interpret it in myriad ways, all because of what it doesn't say as much as what it does say.
What we believe and what is true can be two very different things. This is not to denigrate anyone's belief system -- as the Constitution of which I've written states, the government of the United States will not establish a national religion, (i.e. national belief system). If belief in something brings you comfort, helps you make it through each day, and creates peace for yourself and other like-minded individuals, so be it. Whether your particular belief system bears any resemblance to reality is a subject for philosophical debate, not law. As long as the stricture against establishment of state belief systems holds, no group should fear reprisal against their belief and in the inverse, no one group's belief system should be made to dominate the country as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet how to reconcile this with the recent information that there are more women using the Internet than men? I mean, it's at least plausible that girls/women find the Internet useful but don't have the desire to alter its functionality at all. They may simply be users. Btu one would have to think, given the statistics, that a certain fraction would like to be able to alter functionality (i.e. build web apps, modify current ones, etc.).
Better yet, why don't they just work out a deal to use the patents? Isn't that the idea of patents, to allow the patent holder to profit from the patent? I know making a deal with Verizon is like selling your soul to the Devil's unsavory second cousin, but if it's the difference between the end of your business and staying afloat...
Indeed. If they want to attract women to CS, it needs to start not at the college level, but at the junior high school and high school level, where girls are discouraged from becoming proficient at math and science by mainly male teachers.
These are the people we want teaching our children? Or we want our children to become/emulate? I'm not sure which is more shocking -- the fact that they jumped to conclusions based on a couple of pieces of evidence or the fact that it took 12 days for some bright person to remember the switch in Daylight Time.
Sounds an awful lot like a divorce. And in this case, I'm sure the majority of Americans would appreciate being divorced from the RIAA.
...trap for the unsophisticated Web user. I mean, if you get an email from someone you don't know telling you to update your anti-virus, wouldn't you think that's a little suspicious?
I don't get much spam, because I really don't let my email address float out in the wild, so this kind of thing never bother me. But it just makes me wonder when someone is going to take some initiative and try to build a better system, to minimize the human element as much as possible.
Yes, this incessant pushing of the technology/standards envelope is creating a lot of disjoint, stilted, and otherwise unreadable web sites. It used to be web pages were mainly HTML with a few SSI thrown in for good measure; now they are over-burdened with flashy graphics, tricky menus (god how rollovers are getting out of hand!), and a lack of decent content. I mean, I go to a web site to find information I'm looking for. In the old days, you could do that -- now content is so snarled in meaningless fluff that have the time I have to search the source code just to find what I'm looking for.
This is one of those occasions where you have to admire someone's pluck... I guess he has an overwhelming desire to be hassled by the US Government. This is important work, but it's definitely going to get the black suit, dark sunglasses crowd in a tizzy.
This is the loophole that we use in our demonstration. Through deceit, we convince the user to enter her security question, and thus get the SiteKey image.
No matter what kind of security system you devise, you cannot take out the human element. The Internet seems like magic to people - it knows them, it knows things about them, people can find them from all over the planet. The average user is not curious enough to learn how this is accomplished, paranoid enough to distrust anything at first glance, or savvy enough to protect themselves. Bank of America is kidding itself if it thinks the SiteKey is any kind of deterrent to a hacker.
So it would seem that the disabling of FreeType is more coincident than anything else. It's possible for parallel processes to affect the same thing but have no overt connection.
Which brings up an interesting idea - fake search patterns. On the one hand, you could perform all sorts of irrelevant, meaningless searches to clutter up your search record. On the other hand, imagine you wanted to make it appear that someone was searching for certain information, information that might prove incriminating. Assuming you could somehow gain access to their computer(s), wouldn't it be possible to "plant" searches in a person's search history? How many people who use the major search engines every day know they are being tracked?
...searches are as close to reading our thoughts as is possible.I knew you were going to say that!
I'm beginning to see the TLD system as more of an inconvenient waste of time thanks to initiatives like this. It will challenge hackers and make the average Net user even more gullible and trusting, thinking the .safe tld somehow confers mystical powers on the website.
Domains are easier to remember than IP addresses, but in that convenience lurks the bugaboos we see now. The average user clicks links blindly -- he/she has no idea that the URL beneath the anchor tag may not be going where they think it is. They are certainly not savvy enough to check before they click, hence the ease of phishing. I think it's safe to say ICANN is starting to make things worse, not better.
Until either a) the average Net user's savvy increases and they take steps to protect their personal systems or b) systems are developed that don't require the user's interaction to provide adequate defense, the number of bots will increase steadily. Bots using the same base code but with variations will always be easier to track than completely new strains, but I think at this point the mechanisms for bot injection are so well known that that this will end up being the best way to control them. And even that will simply force the black hats to come up with new and inventive ways of duping people. The end point of the power of the botnet starts with the user taking control of their box and learning to defend it.
Well, this is for the New York City Civil Court (your mileage may vary), but it would seem that it is up to the server to find the person to be served. I really don't think they can legislate that the person being served make themselves more available, sonce there's no real way to know who will receive a subpoena ahead of time.
I thought there were two huge reasons myself...
Can't watch it anymore. It may have appealed to the teenage me, but now you just wince to see David Hasselhoff bantering with the car. Of course, mind you, the car was far more intelligent than Pamela Anderson...
Yes, the Swiss are very trustworthy... ask the Nazis who stored their stolen art and gold there.
IANAL, but it seems that by taking this step, they are making the appeal process more favorable, as they will be able to point to this and go, "See, we're not infringing on the patents anymore!" The main suit will still go forward, as Verizon can continue to claim damages for the period that Vonage was infringing, but no further. This might even lower the amount of damages awarded. That and Vonage gets to keep operating.
I saw this lawsuit as a cheap and dirty way for Verizon to work its way into Vonage, and I think Vonage has foiled them for the moment. It still remains for the courts to decide, so anything is possible.
Curses!!! Foiled Again!!!
No, he's saying he found your key under the mat and let himself in to have a look around, believing you're hiding secret spaceship technology somewhere in your house that you're not sharing with the rest of the world. The man is a loon, pure and simple; I suspect the Brits will be more than happy to extradite him, simply to be rid of him.
Also going to prove what a wonderful job "The Sopranos" has done for New Jersey's image... I'm going to start a campaign to get the motto "The Garden State" changed to "The Whacking State" or "Don't F**k With Us".
We do... it's called the New Jersey Turnpike.
The problem with that is, just whose definitions do you use? The Constitution, like any written document, is subject to interpretation simply because while individual words have a limited range of meaning, their many and varied combinations can be interpreted along a wide spectrum. That's why we have a court system: to try and create a reasonable definition of a law in any given circumstance. Two opposing sides in an argument will generally insist on an interpretation biased toward their definitions. It's up to the court system to try and create consensus, and where not possible or practicable, to enforce a definition based on the court's definitions. And so then you have appeals, as people disagree with the court's definitions, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter in most legal cases.
The same problem exists with the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill. Seems straightforward. But thou shalt not kill what? Men? Women? Dogs? Cat? Ameobas? Fetuses? You can take a simple 4-word phrase and interpret it in myriad ways, all because of what it doesn't say as much as what it does say.
What we believe and what is true can be two very different things. This is not to denigrate anyone's belief system -- as the Constitution of which I've written states, the government of the United States will not establish a national religion, (i.e. national belief system). If belief in something brings you comfort, helps you make it through each day, and creates peace for yourself and other like-minded individuals, so be it. Whether your particular belief system bears any resemblance to reality is a subject for philosophical debate, not law. As long as the stricture against establishment of state belief systems holds, no group should fear reprisal against their belief and in the inverse, no one group's belief system should be made to dominate the country as a whole.