Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Response from Another VP (Score 1) 596

Presumably something like this, but probably more sophisticated:

Bing sidebar extracts list of unique words appearing on each site user goes to and feeds back to MS. MS correlates keywords to the next site that the user visits.

Google honeytrap employees search for trap term on google, click on the returned link which goes to an unrelated site. Since the honeytrap term is unique and no site contains this word, the only data the MS has that relates to this word comes from the sidebar data stream which shows that when a user visits a page containing this word, the next page they go to is the unrelated site. Thus the make the connection that that page is relevant.

I would have thought however that MS would have put a check in to not pull data from the sidebar when the user is visiting Google to precisely avoid this kind of accusation. Since Google found the issue for some of the words in the honeytrap but not all of the words suggests that something more subtle is happening. For example, some of the honeytrap employees might have checked their email using an online hosting service (e.g. gmail etc) to find out what the honeytrap word is before proceeding. The sidebar extracts the unique words from the email and sends to MS. Two or three clicks later the employee is at the unrelated site. Suppose the sidebar is setup to ignoring Google searches. If MS correlates to a few links out it will see the honeytrap word from the email related to the unrelated site without observing the Google results.

Comment Re:Pixel-peeping verus art (Score 1) 103

Not that I know of. Of course anyone on slashdot should be able to whip one up in a couple of minutes... :)

Doing so might violate Google's terms of service, but there are no copyright issues involved, so the only recall Google would have is to block you from their services. Once you have the image it is yours to do what you please with, though IANAL.

Comment Re:Pixel-peeping verus art (Score 1) 103

Totally. A quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that the resolution and quality of these images is enough to create same size reproductions with the same level of detail visible to the naked eye as in the original (however without the 3d aspects of texture and with a considerably reduced color gamut). All we need now are 100 inch monitors with 360 ppi.

Comment Re:Didn't do the math (Score 1) 294

Seems like somebody didn't think this through. If you set your MSRP to be $1,000,000,000, you'll get $200,000,000 for every sale, no matter what they charge for it (as 20% of a billion is going to be greater than 70% of pretty much any retail price.)

Sweet.

Only any retail price less than $285,714,286. I'm sure Amazon would be happy with collecting $85,714,286 for each sale.

Comment Re:High Risk? (Score 1) 183

From the grant documents:

Funds are not intended for basic research leading to process development, although if an applicant deems such R&D to be necessary to achieve performance targets, the inclusion of such work may be included in the overall project plan and schedule, up to 20% of the total proposed budget under...

so, no, not basic research. The high-risk here refers of course to the risk of commercial success:

OMP's emphasis on advanced biofuels is intended to encourage industry to invest in traditionally high-risk biofuels.

From a science (but not commercial) point of view basic research grants tend to be very risk adverse.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can't write, write manuals.

Working...