That you must reveal your secret identity if you want to get your own domain.
OR
You have no method of finding out who is behind a site. Oh, that linux site was registred by foo@microsoft.com...
Too easy to fake, I'm afraid.
It's like those ads for revolutionary new herbal pills, where they always quote some doctor or professor saying this pill changed their life.
If you look them up you'll find that they are doctors and professors allright. Just not in medicine...
First, this violates the first Amendment (not that the UN cares, but people in democracies should be concerned about attempts to regulate any
content).
Oh, given the choice between a government that complies to the UN declaration of human rights and one that only complies to the US constitution, that constitution can screw itself. Freedom of speech is not an american invention OK?
Second, intelligent people do disagree on medical issues. For instance, herbal remedies or chiropractic medicine. Some say it's quackery, and
others say it works, and shouldn't be banned just because the mechanism by which it works hasn't been understood yet.
Intelligent people disagre on *unproven* medical issues. Why can't an authorative body indicate what is *proven* and not?
Take your chances with "alternative" treatments if you wish, I prefer to play it safe.
Third, the whole value of the internet is its freedom. ANYONE can make a web site. But if the WHO is going to regulate anything, they will
have to have prior approval. If they do, that pretty much bans all 'unofficial' health web sites. If they don't, that just guarantees that hospitals,
companies, doctors and other credentialled providers have a huge regulatory hurdle to jump through, when the quacks and con men don't.
Duh! Read it again. They want to regulate a TLD, not the whole web. You want to make an uncertified health site? Fine! Just don't put it under.health!
Really, what does this accomplish which the WHO can't do already with a gif, a review committee and a 'seal of approval'. If they like a web
site, just give it the seal and the right to use the trademarked gif.
The means to effectively revoke a license. Do you trust a site just because it has some officially looking gif? Want to buy a bridge?
Answer: Noone cares what the WHO does or thinks. By getting the force of law behind them (through ICANN's power over TLDs), they
are hoping to grab legitimacy and importance by force-- when they certainly haven't earned it.
*I* care what they think. They have *my* approval. Sure it is a bureaucracy, but it is a bureaucracy focused on world health, not the stock value of a drug company.
Definitely!
That is the right way to do it.
Medical information is a serious thing. I definitely sympathise with an effort, not to ban alternative medicin from the net, but to clearly mark approved advice as approved.
I might be able to tell a quack from a working alternative, but there are a lot of suckers out there.
Actually, I'd like to see something similar in the other sections. Make "controlled" TLD-s for those who wish to play it safe, and leave the "normal" net to those who think they have clues enough to separate a hoax from a serious site, a parody from an imposter and an art gallery from a porn site.
Of course it would be absurd to replace all pilots with computers. The idea is to place humans out of harms way, not out of the loop.
Now a botplane == reusable cruise missile *might* save costs if it works. (which I doubt it will for a few more years, it is not like this is the first attempt)
But if you want to add another element to the battlefield, not just save money, you need a botplane that can go beyond striking a predetermined target. You may send in your botplanes trolling for SAM and AA sites and take them out without risking your pilots. That is a (rather) simple task:
while !OutOfFuel(){
FlyAround();
LookMean();
if (FiredUpon) then ReturnFire();
}
ReturnToBase();
The problem is that the enemy soon will learn not to fire upon bots, saving their missiles for real planes.
The other use is to fly over an area where there are suspected ground targets, but their precise location is not known and there is a high risk of SAM's.
Now iraq and kosovo showed the USAF that sattelites and human pilots are easily fooled by decoys. Do you really expect a computer to do better?
Your arguments about battleships are already answered elsewhere, so I'll leave it here.
You're kidding, right? A good bot in a combat game is unbeatable.
A bot in a quick reaction/if it moves, blast it - combat game, yes.
But a bot in a RTS game? A bot in a game with heavy penalties for blasting allies/NP:s? A bot against a human player who may wear a disguise, looking like an ally/NP?
If you just want to destroy everything in an area, you don't need a robofighter, you can use a cruise missile or high altitude bombing (or in extreme cases an ICBM)
And putting the crosshairs of a 20mm cannon on a live target is no different than in a game.
It is very different (apart from the fact that you are killing someone)
Reality is quite a bit larger than a quake arena. There are fake targets to confuse you, there are bushes and fog to hide behind. There are all sorts of things that you didn't expect.
And most of all, You cannot afford to make mistakes. There is no "next round"
Hrm,... NN:s (or any "AI" stuff) are not my speciality, but I quote from a Neural net faq:
In practice, NNs are especially useful for mapping problems
which are tolerant of a high error rate, have lots of example data
available, but to which hard and fast rules can not easily be applied.
You cannot afford a high error rate when an error may result in killing civilians, allies or your own forces.
You only have "lots of example data" of opposing military stategies if they are sloppy.
For a unmanned fighter hard and fast rules *must* be applied. Like "don't fire unless 200% confirmed enemy" and "Go for your highest priority target"
Don't try to tell me that it is easier to fool a (not unsuspecting) human than a computer.
I second that. I work on artillery control systems. It's not just something you can hack out. Guys, if you make a mistake, you don't just get a
BSOD. If you make a mistake, people DIE. The wrong people. Not the bad guys.
A story here: A friend of mine did his military service in the artillery. During a sharp weapons exercise, they drove their howitzer into the indicated position, assembled it, entered their and their targets coordinated in their military number cruncher, pointed the barrel in the indicated direction AND DID THE REGULATED DOUBLE CHECK.
Imagine the pale faces when it turned that some guy had mixed up north and south and the Bofors Howitzer m/77 (range > 20 km) was pointing 180 degrees wrong.
After they got back, they did a quick check to see where they were first aiming. Smack in the center square of a nearby town...
talk to the developers of Terminus at Vicarious Visions. During the first demo they did at RPI those dev's told us that the AI could beat their
best more than half the time. Not only that, they (the AI) were employing some very interesting "stalk and kill" methods.
If that is more than promotion talk: impressing!
I remain sceptical though. Computers, even state of the art "AI:s" play by the rules. Playing by the rules is not a good war-time strategy...
Ever seen one where the AI can beat a skilled human player?
Granted, the USAF might do a better job at AI's then a gaming company, the basic problems are the same:
There simply are no automated solutions to a chaotic scenario! Freaking mathematically impossible!
A fully automated fighter will obey certain simple rules (fire at most threating target first, do evasive manouvers if fired upon)
A human will learn those rules, and make sure that "the most threating target" is actually a decoy and that the robofighter is under a constant haul of cheap, quite harmless missiles that will distract it.
Suppose the robofighter can determine friend/foe with 100% accuracy. That was the *easy* part. Now the question is "should I fire or not?"
Again, see to the gaming situation. Don't you just love how those AI controlled opponents take impossible long distance shots at you, giving you a chance to duck and return accurate fire from a better position? Or how 20 bots scramble to meet a single opponent, while the rest are sneaking in from the back?
Humans make mistakes, machines make mistakes. THe difference is that machines make their mistakes systematically.
OK we are splitting hairs here, but I'm bored, so I'll go on;-)
I agree that no "rights" are being trampled, in the same sense that no rights are being trampled by the mobster who asks a witness how his nice kids are doing.
The rights that are of interest here are the rights of the peole in Cuba to choose their way regardless of what their big neighbor thinks.
Some decades ago they threw one dictator out. Now unfortunately they got another one instead.
* This is none of the US business! *
If it was a democratic government overthrown by a dictator, there would at least be a moral ground to stand on, but it would still be a domestic Cuban affair.
The US has no more rights deciding who governs a country in latin america, than the USSR had, deciding who ran Poland or Hungary.
As to Cuba - the penalty isn't for trading with Cuba. It's for importing Cuban goods into the United States. It's also illegal to go there, if you are a US citizen. However, if you organize a trade route between Canada (which has no embargo) and Cuba, without your goods ever setting
foot in the US, without Americans visiting Cuba, it is perfectly legal.
Its a bit worse than that.
A (non-US) company that does business with Cuba may not eport to the US!
Basically, the US gov says: Pick your choise, trade with Cuba XOR trade with us.
Kind of the same attitude Bejing has towards Taiwan.
(And of course this has only strengthened the Castro regime. Without a strong external enemy, the cubans would focus on domestic issues)
Oh there is this new thing around. They call it "the internet" or something like that.
Stopping artists from webcasting their own work might be beyond the powers of even the RIAA
And the interesting issue is: do you work for someone else and build THEIR assetts, or do you work for yourself and hire other people to
build yours? With something as important as your own music, the former seems much better.
You do mean the other way around, right?
A good PR firm is really expensive, of course, but if you are, like Madonna (or metallica) it's not much compared to the income from music sales.
The Britney-wannabes needs an old style starmaker record company of course, but that's just because they are the ones who gets screwed in the end anyway.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
The real threat to the record megacorps lies not in users downloading songs instead of buying CD's.
It lies in artists bypassing the record companies.
A studio can be rented for a resonable amount of money, distribution can be done over the net.
The only remaining service that the record companies provide is promotion.
There are a lot of ways to promote your band without a record company, Even if you are a world-scale artist, it might be better to hire a PR-firm rather than a record company.
Filtering is done at the delievery end; the goal of filtering is to limit what content that a select subgroup of the whole can see; the content still goes out regardless.
Censoring is done at the producing end; the goal of censoring is to prevent content from even being distributed to anyone.
Eh,... can you explain the practical difference between preventing someone from speaking and preventing people to hear what is said?
I recognize the distinction between "filtering for everyone" and "Filtering for kids" but mandatory filters at schools and libraries *does not just affect children!*
Do you really think that senior year high school students needs filtering? What if they use the same library as some ten year olds?
Perhaps we should impelement the starting questions from "leisure suit larry"
"How old are you" (18)
"To verify that you are really 18 you must answer these questions..."
If I told you to select one of the following three options:
1. You are to be executed with a gun
2. You are to be executed using hanging
3. You are allowed to live
I also told you that lots of other people had also voted and the third option would not do anything for you. Would you in that case not choose the third option?
If you truly believe that the choise btw Bush/Gore is equivalent to choose method of execution, your analogy is correct
Others might rather see it as a choise between:
1. I break your right leg.
2. I smack your face.
3. I let you go.
Knowing that most people want to kick your butt and that it is a close call between 1. and 2., you might want to vote for no 2.
i.e. the Nader/Gore choise depends on wether the Gore/Bush choise matters to you or if they are equally unacceptable.
The main problem with censorship is the censor.
A machine cannot make filtering choises by itself, and a human censor will always be subjet to his/her own values.
The only kind of censorware that i *might* accept as a compromise would:
a) be open about it's algorithms and criterias. (open data much more important than open source in this case)
b) be overridable. (have a setting that does not block teh site, but display a message "Warning, the site you requested is listed as pornographic/hate speech/etc Do you want to continue? (y/n)"
As a potential parent, unlike you, and Frank Zappa, I DONT want my children exposed to these materials. If I choose to not have my
children curse, or watch violence, I expect that society will not make the decision impossible.
I'm definitely a potential parent.
Let me tell you a secret. In society there are such things as nudity, porn (not the same thing), violence and curses. Wether you like it or not has nothing to do with it. If you don't want your children exposed to any of those, keep them away from society. You will do them a huge un-service, but if you want to isolate them from the world please do (now I might call that child abuse, but lets not go too far)
I dont have any problem with the fact that kids 'end up' seeing porn, and hearing cussing.
My problem is when my tax dollars are being used to PROVIDE that. I dont agree with that.
Beep, wrong!
YOU want to spend tax dollars preventing it, not the other way around.
or rather: you could cut them off from the net (and other media) for a low cost, you can give them access for a moderate cost or moderate their access for a high cost. Those are your options.
The first option saves you tax dollars but ruin their exucation. The third will not keep the bad things away, and will cost your and *mine* tax money.
Censorship exists for one reason.
BECAUSE CHILDREN *ARE* DIFFERENT THAN ADULTS.
Yes. Children have not yet learned that naked bodies are exiting. They have not yet learned (much) about sex. They have not yet learned the taboos that makes porn interesting.
UNTIL A CHILD LEARNS THESE THINGS, THEY ARE JUST NOT INTERESTED!
A kid who stumbles onto a porn site will most likely simply move on to disney.com
Exeptions are a) a kid who has matured enough to be interested in sex. That is, has figured out that those body parts are good for other things than urinating.
b) a kid whos parents freaks out at the sight of skin. That kid will not know *why* this is so interesting, but since it is forbidden it must be
In addition, that *is* how our society is geared. The internet should not be the exception
Ever wondered about the "inter" part of "internet"?
That means that there is stuff there from any society. Not just yours.
Deal with it.
How does the customer gain access to the site? Regular passwords or soething better?
I don't know what's behind the web interface of *my* bank, but one thing that made me trust them is that they *dont* use regular passwords. Instead it's a pain-in-the-ass-but-safe procedure with one-time passwords from an external gadget.
The web site prompts me two four digit numbers which I enter in the device to get a six digit number back. That is the one-time password.
Even if someone broke the ssl and sniffed a password it would do them no good, since it was already expired.
And if I make any transaction that send money ouside my accounts, i must enter another one-timer, just in case I was stupid enough to leave my computer logged in.
Of course the system can be broken, but I'd worry much more about CC fraud or someone copying the magnetic strip from my ATM card and somehow get my PIN. (looking over my shoulder for example)
I have a huge concern if they then sell their log information to a tracking company which aggregates a lot of logs to then track my activity
across the next.
Amen. I do hope that most of the sites that would be interested in this are guarding their own logs too jealously for this to happen, but I'm keeping my eyes open...
But that was not really my question. As I understood it someone did a lot of traceroutes to find the location of the clients, then selling a database over the results of those traceroutes.
Is there anything fundamentally different between doing this and tracerouting at runtime? (apart from the loss of efficiency in the later case)
I'm ashamed to reveal that most of the shit is actually swedish.
Check out producer/songwriter etc for Britney, N'Sync, Backstreet boys, Celine Dion, etc.
Max Martin and Cheirion studios all over the place.
Yes the country that brought you ABBA and Roxette is now haunting you with worse music than ever.
Slashdot Mirror
OR
You have no method of finding out who is behind a site. Oh, that linux site was registred by foo@microsoft.com...
I say tough luck Clark Kent!
Too easy to fake, I'm afraid.
It's like those ads for revolutionary new herbal pills, where they always quote some doctor or professor saying this pill changed their life.
If you look them up you'll find that they are doctors and professors allright. Just not in medicine...
First, this violates the first Amendment (not that the UN cares, but people in democracies should be concerned about attempts to regulate any content).
Oh, given the choice between a government that complies to the UN declaration of human rights and one that only complies to the US constitution, that constitution can screw itself. Freedom of speech is not an american invention OK?
Second, intelligent people do disagree on medical issues. For instance, herbal remedies or chiropractic medicine. Some say it's quackery, and others say it works, and shouldn't be banned just because the mechanism by which it works hasn't been understood yet.
Intelligent people disagre on *unproven* medical issues. Why can't an authorative body indicate what is *proven* and not?
Take your chances with "alternative" treatments if you wish, I prefer to play it safe.
Third, the whole value of the internet is its freedom. ANYONE can make a web site. But if the WHO is going to regulate anything, they will have to have prior approval. If they do, that pretty much bans all 'unofficial' health web sites. If they don't, that just guarantees that hospitals, companies, doctors and other credentialled providers have a huge regulatory hurdle to jump through, when the quacks and con men don't.
Duh! Read it again. They want to regulate a TLD, not the whole web. You want to make an uncertified health site? Fine! Just don't put it under .health!
Really, what does this accomplish which the WHO can't do already with a gif, a review committee and a 'seal of approval'. If they like a web site, just give it the seal and the right to use the trademarked gif.
The means to effectively revoke a license. Do you trust a site just because it has some officially looking gif? Want to buy a bridge?
Answer: Noone cares what the WHO does or thinks. By getting the force of law behind them (through ICANN's power over TLDs), they are hoping to grab legitimacy and importance by force-- when they certainly haven't earned it.
*I* care what they think. They have *my* approval. Sure it is a bureaucracy, but it is a bureaucracy focused on world health, not the stock value of a drug company.
That is the right way to do it.
Medical information is a serious thing. I definitely sympathise with an effort, not to ban alternative medicin from the net, but to clearly mark approved advice as approved.
I might be able to tell a quack from a working alternative, but there are a lot of suckers out there.
Actually, I'd like to see something similar in the other sections. Make "controlled" TLD-s for those who wish to play it safe, and leave the "normal" net to those who think they have clues enough to separate a hoax from a serious site, a parody from an imposter and an art gallery from a porn site.
Now a botplane == reusable cruise missile *might* save costs if it works. (which I doubt it will for a few more years, it is not like this is the first attempt)
But if you want to add another element to the battlefield, not just save money, you need a botplane that can go beyond striking a predetermined target. You may send in your botplanes trolling for SAM and AA sites and take them out without risking your pilots. That is a (rather) simple task:
while !OutOfFuel(){
FlyAround();
LookMean();
if (FiredUpon) then ReturnFire();
}
ReturnToBase();
The problem is that the enemy soon will learn not to fire upon bots, saving their missiles for real planes.
The other use is to fly over an area where there are suspected ground targets, but their precise location is not known and there is a high risk of SAM's.
Now iraq and kosovo showed the USAF that sattelites and human pilots are easily fooled by decoys. Do you really expect a computer to do better?
Your arguments about battleships are already answered elsewhere, so I'll leave it here.
A bot in a quick reaction/if it moves, blast it - combat game, yes.
But a bot in a RTS game? A bot in a game with heavy penalties for blasting allies/NP:s? A bot against a human player who may wear a disguise, looking like an ally/NP?
If you just want to destroy everything in an area, you don't need a robofighter, you can use a cruise missile or high altitude bombing (or in extreme cases an ICBM)
And putting the crosshairs of a 20mm cannon on a live target is no different than in a game.
It is very different (apart from the fact that you are killing someone)
Reality is quite a bit larger than a quake arena. There are fake targets to confuse you, there are bushes and fog to hide behind. There are all sorts of things that you didn't expect.
And most of all, You cannot afford to make mistakes. There is no "next round"
In practice, NNs are especially useful for mapping problems which are tolerant of a high error rate, have lots of example data available, but to which hard and fast rules can not easily be applied.
You cannot afford a high error rate when an error may result in killing civilians, allies or your own forces.
You only have "lots of example data" of opposing military stategies if they are sloppy.
For a unmanned fighter hard and fast rules *must* be applied. Like "don't fire unless 200% confirmed enemy" and "Go for your highest priority target"
Don't try to tell me that it is easier to fool a (not unsuspecting) human than a computer.
A story here: A friend of mine did his military service in the artillery. During a sharp weapons exercise, they drove their howitzer into the indicated position, assembled it, entered their and their targets coordinated in their military number cruncher, pointed the barrel in the indicated direction AND DID THE REGULATED DOUBLE CHECK.
Imagine the pale faces when it turned that some guy had mixed up north and south and the Bofors Howitzer m/77 (range > 20 km) was pointing 180 degrees wrong.
After they got back, they did a quick check to see where they were first aiming. Smack in the center square of a nearby town...
If that is more than promotion talk: impressing!
I remain sceptical though. Computers, even state of the art "AI:s" play by the rules. Playing by the rules is not a good war-time strategy...
Granted, the USAF might do a better job at AI's then a gaming company, the basic problems are the same:
There simply are no automated solutions to a chaotic scenario! Freaking mathematically impossible!
A fully automated fighter will obey certain simple rules (fire at most threating target first, do evasive manouvers if fired upon)
A human will learn those rules, and make sure that "the most threating target" is actually a decoy and that the robofighter is under a constant haul of cheap, quite harmless missiles that will distract it.
Suppose the robofighter can determine friend/foe with 100% accuracy. That was the *easy* part. Now the question is "should I fire or not?"
Again, see to the gaming situation. Don't you just love how those AI controlled opponents take impossible long distance shots at you, giving you a chance to duck and return accurate fire from a better position? Or how 20 bots scramble to meet a single opponent, while the rest are sneaking in from the back?
Humans make mistakes, machines make mistakes. THe difference is that machines make their mistakes systematically.
I agree that no "rights" are being trampled, in the same sense that no rights are being trampled by the mobster who asks a witness how his nice kids are doing.
The rights that are of interest here are the rights of the peole in Cuba to choose their way regardless of what their big neighbor thinks.
Some decades ago they threw one dictator out. Now unfortunately they got another one instead.
* This is none of the US business! *
If it was a democratic government overthrown by a dictator, there would at least be a moral ground to stand on, but it would still be a domestic Cuban affair.
The US has no more rights deciding who governs a country in latin america, than the USSR had, deciding who ran Poland or Hungary.
'xept Cuba, pehaps?
Trade yes, diplomacy no, aint it logical?
Its a bit worse than that.
A (non-US) company that does business with Cuba may not eport to the US!
Basically, the US gov says: Pick your choise, trade with Cuba XOR trade with us.
Kind of the same attitude Bejing has towards Taiwan.
(And of course this has only strengthened the Castro regime. Without a strong external enemy, the cubans would focus on domestic issues)
Stopping artists from webcasting their own work might be beyond the powers of even the RIAA
You do mean the other way around, right?
A good PR firm is really expensive, of course, but if you are, like Madonna (or metallica) it's not much compared to the income from music sales.
The Britney-wannabes needs an old style starmaker record company of course, but that's just because they are the ones who gets screwed in the end anyway.
The real threat to the record megacorps lies not in users downloading songs instead of buying CD's.
It lies in artists bypassing the record companies.
A studio can be rented for a resonable amount of money, distribution can be done over the net.
The only remaining service that the record companies provide is promotion.
There are a lot of ways to promote your band without a record company, Even if you are a world-scale artist, it might be better to hire a PR-firm rather than a record company.
Censoring is done at the producing end; the goal of censoring is to prevent content from even being distributed to anyone.
Eh,... can you explain the practical difference between preventing someone from speaking and preventing people to hear what is said?
I recognize the distinction between "filtering for everyone" and "Filtering for kids" but mandatory filters at schools and libraries *does not just affect children!*
Do you really think that senior year high school students needs filtering? What if they use the same library as some ten year olds?
Perhaps we should impelement the starting questions from "leisure suit larry"
"How old are you" (18)
"To verify that you are really 18 you must answer these questions..."
1. You are to be executed with a gun
2. You are to be executed using hanging
3. You are allowed to live
I also told you that lots of other people had also voted and the third option would not do anything for you. Would you in that case not choose the third option?
If you truly believe that the choise btw Bush/Gore is equivalent to choose method of execution, your analogy is correct
Others might rather see it as a choise between:
1. I break your right leg.
2. I smack your face.
3. I let you go.
Knowing that most people want to kick your butt and that it is a close call between 1. and 2., you might want to vote for no 2.
i.e. the Nader/Gore choise depends on wether the Gore/Bush choise matters to you or if they are equally unacceptable.
The main problem with censorship is the censor.
A machine cannot make filtering choises by itself, and a human censor will always be subjet to his/her own values.
The only kind of censorware that i *might* accept as a compromise would:
a) be open about it's algorithms and criterias. (open data much more important than open source in this case)
b) be overridable. (have a setting that does not block teh site, but display a message "Warning, the site you requested is listed as pornographic/hate speech/etc Do you want to continue? (y/n)"
I'm definitely a potential parent.
Let me tell you a secret. In society there are such things as nudity, porn (not the same thing), violence and curses. Wether you like it or not has nothing to do with it. If you don't want your children exposed to any of those, keep them away from society. You will do them a huge un-service, but if you want to isolate them from the world please do (now I might call that child abuse, but lets not go too far)
I dont have any problem with the fact that kids 'end up' seeing porn, and hearing cussing. My problem is when my tax dollars are being used to PROVIDE that. I dont agree with that.
Beep, wrong!
YOU want to spend tax dollars preventing it, not the other way around.
or rather: you could cut them off from the net (and other media) for a low cost, you can give them access for a moderate cost or moderate their access for a high cost. Those are your options.
The first option saves you tax dollars but ruin their exucation. The third will not keep the bad things away, and will cost your and *mine* tax money.
Censorship exists for one reason.
BECAUSE CHILDREN *ARE* DIFFERENT THAN ADULTS.
Yes. Children have not yet learned that naked bodies are exiting. They have not yet learned (much) about sex. They have not yet learned the taboos that makes porn interesting.
UNTIL A CHILD LEARNS THESE THINGS, THEY ARE JUST NOT INTERESTED!
A kid who stumbles onto a porn site will most likely simply move on to disney.com
Exeptions are a) a kid who has matured enough to be interested in sex. That is, has figured out that those body parts are good for other things than urinating.
b) a kid whos parents freaks out at the sight of skin. That kid will not know *why* this is so interesting, but since it is forbidden it must be
In addition, that *is* how our society is geared. The internet should not be the exception
Ever wondered about the "inter" part of "internet"?
That means that there is stuff there from any society. Not just yours.
Deal with it.
I don't know what's behind the web interface of *my* bank, but one thing that made me trust them is that they *dont* use regular passwords. Instead it's a pain-in-the-ass-but-safe procedure with one-time passwords from an external gadget.
The web site prompts me two four digit numbers which I enter in the device to get a six digit number back. That is the one-time password.
Even if someone broke the ssl and sniffed a password it would do them no good, since it was already expired.
And if I make any transaction that send money ouside my accounts, i must enter another one-timer, just in case I was stupid enough to leave my computer logged in.
Of course the system can be broken, but I'd worry much more about CC fraud or someone copying the magnetic strip from my ATM card and somehow get my PIN. (looking over my shoulder for example)
Amen. I do hope that most of the sites that would be interested in this are guarding their own logs too jealously for this to happen, but I'm keeping my eyes open...
But that was not really my question. As I understood it someone did a lot of traceroutes to find the location of the clients, then selling a database over the results of those traceroutes.
Is there anything fundamentally different between doing this and tracerouting at runtime? (apart from the loss of efficiency in the later case)
Check out producer/songwriter etc for Britney, N'Sync, Backstreet boys, Celine Dion, etc.
Max Martin and Cheirion studios all over the place.
Yes the country that brought you ABBA and Roxette is now haunting you with worse music than ever.
I'm using NS 4.5 right now. All I want is a major bugfix! (ok plus some xml support, but I can live without that)
I dont need more features, I need a bugfix!!