Who wood have thought?
Who wood have thought?
I know we chastise the editors a lot for not specifying the meaning of an abbreviation, but I feel like in this case it is actually not helpful at all - it doesn't much matter what MIT stands for - it matters more what the MIT license is.
Who says compassion isn't profitable?
I think we're past the point of registering just cameras. What we should instead be doing is requiring and enforcing registration of smartphones and any devices with a camera, and requiring any video recording device to watermark incoming images so that you can identify exactly which device took a particular picture. This would solve all sorts of problems from photo copyright to child pornography. You would be able to tell exactly which device was used to take a picture and find out who the first distributor was.
There are obviously lots of holes that you have to fill in on the way there - you would have to stop the momentum towards open hardware and software - no more letting ordinary people install custom software on their phones willy nilly. Custom ROMs are leading to the devastation of our society. Custom apps need to be tightly controlled to avoid people developing software to workaround the watermarking (though maybe it is best to just ban them outright).
Any software capable of loading and transmitting a file needs to be tightly controlled so that we know exactly who is sending these images where.
It is ridiculous that with the state of technology today we still allow people to run arbitrary software on personal computers and devices. We need to lock all this down before the harm to society is irreversible.
I don't have particular objections to the long form census, especially as I doubt they will come after you if you don't fill out all the questions, or answer erroneously (although considering the data is used for planning though this wouldn't necessarily seem to be in ones best interest).
However, it makes me worry that this is being presented as 'open and fair government'. I was really hoping Trudeau's campaign for 'real change' would include dropping the political blowing smoke up asses and not making every decision part of a heroic effort for 'open and fair government.'
I would be more concerned about the extra radiation from the DC rather than the sound.
Whenever I see networking WiFi equipment I get headaches. I couldn't imagine having to see a DC all the time. I'd be able to feel myself getting cancer.
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor. But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
If you consider, for example, the connection between having sex and having a baby (and for the sake of example, ignore all the signs in between), and you took a sample of women who had babies three months after having sex, you could perhaps conclude that there is no relationships between having sex and having a baby.
Is 4 1/2 years enough time after the radiation exposure for cancer to develop and be detected?
You will be able to get far better statistics by looking at your Fukushima population in say 2030 and comparing your cancer rate to the general population.
Perhaps it isn't what it is walling and what exposure it offers. I mean, there are obvious nefarious things like relaying spam and such. However, with wider and wider adoption of Wordpress in larger sites, there is lots of opportunity such as:
1. Changing affiliate links to redirect money to yourself
2. During election time, political sites seem to be potential big targets. Obviously one approach would be to do something blatant and visible, but if you wanted to be more nefarious you could make subtle changes that would impact the political message while going mostly undetected
3. Along the same lines, adding subtle, hidden referrals to other sites could help drive huge traffic. Similar to 1, say you had a site that offered products reviews and provided a link to another site where you could purchase the product. You could instead link to your own site to drive business. It would be subtle, perhaps unnoticeable, but would end with people buying a TV from say, Best Buy instead of Sears.
These are just some of many possible options where you can alter content in subtle ways for either profit, or to discredit another person/group.
It's hard to market genetically modified food in the US these days. But people have less trouble with gmo pets I guess.
I wouldn't judge her for not recording the transactions, on the other hand, given that it was unlikely to stop I wonder if it would have been possible to record and wait until she was finished in order to prevent it from happening to future students. I doubt this is isolated behaviour and it sounds like he was generally an asshole.
Additionally, enduring and keeping the records might have underlined and highlighted the bleakness of the situation a student might find themselves in - forced to endure unwanted attention because of the stakes that are on the line.
That was more a comment on typical human nature which results in people choosing dictionary based passwords.
Also, it depends on the cost factor as well, obviously. I don't recall seeing an indication of what it was.
Either way, it would be fairly reasonable to try, say, the top 30000 common dictionary passwords (and other common passwords) on each hash in the table. According to http://openwall.info/wiki/john..., you can do about 1000 bcrypt hashes per second on a single core of an i7 3k series. So you can try all 30000 dictionary passwords in 30 seconds on a single core. If you ran say, 1 million passwords, it would take 30 million seconds, which is 347 days. Now if you can rent a single of these cores for say, $25 a month (which I think is conservative but it's hard to find cloud compute based on a specific processor), you would need 12 of them for a month, which would cost $300.
Magnified by my suspicion (completely not based on any scientific study) that:
People with weaker passwords that would be found using the dictionary attack are:
- More likely to reuse their passwords elsewhere
- Less likely to pay attention to news like this
- Less likely to actually change their password other places if they do find out about this
you will have at least some payoff.
I mean, if something legitimately looked like it would make it possible to purchase google.com, for example, and it was a reputable site, then I would try it. Not because I would want to do evil, and not because I intend to cause harm. But only because I'm curious and would assume that it doesn't actually work, and the small part (ok, bigger than I'd like to think) of me that relates to this comic would be compelled to point out to the reputable vendor that something was obviously wrong with their site as I would expect to complete the transaction and not actually end up owning google.com.
The surprise for this guy was probably that the transaction actually went through and some reputable system actually believed him to own the domain.
"Positive ratings post immediately; negative ratings are queued in a private inbox for 48 hours in case of disputes. If you haven’t registered for the site, and thus can’t contest those negative ratings, your profile only shows positive reviews."
So, first of all, this punishes users for registering for the site. Given this information, I wonder if it will dissuade people from registering in the first place. On the other hand, assuming that they publish reviews attached to positive ratings immediately, I foresee people leaving negative text with positive ratings to work around this.
"On top of that, Peeple has outlawed a laundry list of bad behaviors, including profanity, sexism and mention of private health conditions."
I'm curious as to how they intend to outlaw these behaviours. I doubt that they are hand reviewing the reviews. So if my private health condition is mentioned then, presumably I have to somehow monitor the site for awareness of it, and then file a complaint *after* personal details have been disclosed.
On the other hand, this is a site that has not been launched yet and it has been in at least three major news outlets and we're talking about it on slashdot. I suppose we fell into the publicity trap hook, line and sinker.
Well... you can still brute force a lot of the passwords if you have the hash and the salt.
Now if they encrypted the hashes then that might make for harder work.
"Today's robots are very primitive, capable of understanding only a few simple instructions such as 'go left', 'go right', and 'build car'." --John Sladek