If the pattern file has N lines and the e-mail has M lines, and if we count comparing one line of the pattern file against one line of the e-mail as one operation, then for each of the N lines of the file, we have to do M comparisons.
There are better algorithms than this obvious one, though, and it would surprise me if egrep didn't use one of them when given the whole list of patterns at once.
You're awful dumb, and anyone who thinks that the problem is Islam hops right on that awfully dumb bandwagon right next to you.
Could you please supply facts and citations to refute my view. An "argument" solely based on calling names is best left for the playground.
"As long as there's a line, and as long as we keep taking the wealth from their side to our side and not letting them over the line, they are going to hate us, and some of them are going to try and kill us."
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why the First World countries are rich. They are rich because the citizens work to *create* wealth. That's right. Wealth gets created. Through great ideas and hard work. Case studies: the Internet and iPhone. The First World invented these and *created* massive wealth in the process. The Third World was not deprived by their creation - yet the Marxists will lie to your face and say that the only reason the First World, and entrepreneurs are Rich are because they exploit others. This is absolute rubbish and it is amazing in this day and age that anyone still parrots that throughly discredited view of a long-gone Early Industrial Era.
The First World cultures work together to prmote honesty and trust in a common project. That means people can trade and corruption is exposed and minimised. Yes, the First World sometimes uses the Third World for its resources - but this benefits the Third World too (and would benefit all citizens, except for the fact that the major problem in the Third World is corruption so only a few get the benefits).
The reason the Third World is poor is because of rampant corruption and ideologies that calls great instability (eg. abberant Christianity of the Lord' Resistance Army in Uganda, or the mainstream Islamic jihad in Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, Niger, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Southern Russia etc).
To say that the First World is rich because it "stole" from the Third World is simply *wrong*. To say that the Third World is poor because of the First World is *wrong* (its due to internal problems in the Third World, such as the corruption). That's why countries with totally smashed infrastructure like Germany, Japan and Korea can got from behind the Third World to well in front.
Its the culture of personal industry, entrepreneurship, honesty and investment in the common national project that makes the difference between First World and the rest. Don't let the false Marxist memes fool you - they are not based on the historical facts.
Now to you all socialists out there. Stop whinging about the rich, k? Instead of complaining that hard working entrepreneurs give more to the poor (despite the fact they give a lot more than you) how about you create something that other people will willingly pay you for. Then you will enrich yourself, your employees and you will pay a lot of tax to keep the insatiable Governement bureaucracies going and a lot of tax will go to helping the poor. Whinging about the rich doesn't help anyone. Creating wealth yourself to share with others does. So get to it!
Because the ocean isn't perfectly even. Tidal forces, wind and waves, currents, plate activity, volcanoes, it's constantly flowing every which way. I'd be surprised if the sea level rose exactly the same amount in Oahu and Cardiff.
Strictly speaking, if the ocean is constantly moving then you can't actually measure if it's rising or falling. Because it would need to stop moving to measure it.
Dude. Math. Learn some.
(In particular, very, very basic statistics)
Sqlite, or anything that uses an index, will be screaming fast.
Your statement of your current solution makes me wonder, though.. are you using "egrep -F -f pattern_file e_mail_message"? Or are you running egrep many times, once per line of the pattern file, or once per line of the message? I would think that given a pattern file egrep would be smart enough to do something better than repeatedly scanning the input, but based on the time it's taking, it sounds like that's happening.
The intelligence failure are not about not having sufficient technology. It is a failure of will. There is an ideology that has driven over 21500 fatal attacks around the globe and is tearing up the Middle East (citation: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/). Yet, the US Government has *banned* any mention of that ideology and association of it with the terrorism it so clearly spawns (citation: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/robert-spencer/obama-adminstration-bans-the-truth-about-islam-and-jihad/). The FBI, CIA, DoD, NSA are all *prohibited* from mentioning certain words to do with this ideology due to Government policy (where the Government has been infiltrated by the very organizations that promote such terrorism) [citation: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates%5D
The Orwellian nature of this ideology and its political associates has gotten so bad that I cannot even say its name on Slashdot - because to mention that ideology invites a flurry of downmods. No matter how many citations or indisputable facts one provides.
That is why the NSA will fail to provide timely information. Friendly countries can provide all the tips in the world (as the Russians did a number of times with the Boston Bombers: citation http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/russia-repeatedly-warned-us-about-muslim-boston-bomber/) by the US intelligence agencies will discard this information. This represents a failure of will on the part of the US intelligence services (driven by their political masters).
ps. this is *on topic*, so p!ss off with your downmods (those that suppport terrorism).
And the ideas existed before MAC as well. This sort of stuff used to be standard for operating systems.
Good point. Mainframes had in-depth security architectures long ago. I'm not very familiar with how they worked, though.
a necessary part of being a sysadmin: you have control over user profiles.
Is it really, though. Wouldn't it be technically possible to create a system where not even root is able to login as a user (or atleast be unable to do anything when logged in) yet is still able to manage the system?
To do it, you need to make it possible to do the bulk of administration without the highest-level administrative account, and to make that secure you need something like Mandatory Access Control (google it -- and note that the NSA invented it). You still have to have a "god" level which can manage the MAC configuration, but the key is to make the need for that very rare, and then limit the number of people who can use that to a handful, and audit their usage of the account thoroughly -- which may mean that they have to be observed every minute they're using it. Nothing is foolproof, but (barring exploitable bugs), that approach ensures that no single admin can do what they're no supposed to. They have to collude with someone else.
Oh, one more comment: I should also mention in the interest of full disclosure that I find targeted advertising to be a good thing. I don't particularly like ads, and I'd rather not see them at all, but given that advertising is the model that pays for pretty much all of the web content I enjoy, since I have to see ads I'd much rather see ads about things that actually interest me.
This was driven home a couple of days ago when I was semi-forced to watch TV for a few hours, during the afternoon. One particular sequence of commercials contained (1) an ad for a legal firm specializing in getting social security disability benefits for people, (2) an ad for catheters, with women gushing about how compact and easy to carry and insert they were and (3) an ad for some medication for some gynecological disorder, prompted me to turn to my colleague who was sitting nearby and point out that I really like targeted advertising. That sequence was just the final straw, too, after many other ads that I found not just uninteresting but distasteful.
Show me ads for hiking shoes, bicycle gear, boats, guns, gadgets, etc. -- stuff that I might actually want to know about and may even want to buy, thank you very much.
when they analyze your data so that they can sell you to advertisers
I think the wording of this statement is misleading. It implies that some information about you is being sent to advertisers, which is not the case.
their method is to build a profile of you based on your communications that they can sell to advertisers
And again, this is not the case. Google doesn't sell user profiles to advertisers.
this is not simply some filtering system like a spam filter, it is a system to catalog every bit of information about you to be able to understand who you are, what you do, where you go, what interests you have and who you communicate with so they can show you more effective advertising.
I changed the bolded words in your statement, to make it more accurate. Yes, Google's intent is to understand you in some depth, in order to both provide you with better services, and to show you advertising that is relevant to your interests.
Of course, if you don't want targeted advertising from Google, you're free to opt out, even while still receiving the free services.
Does this corrected understanding of what Google does and doesn't do change anything for you? Based on the line that I described in my previous post (GP to this one), it makes all the difference to me. If that's not where you draw the line, I pose the same question to you that I posed to rtb61: Where do you draw the line? Is analysis for the purpose of targeted advertising different from analysis for spam filtering or automatic categorization, and, if so, why? Is it just a distaste for advertising driving your attitude, or is there actually some privacy consideration that I'm missing?
Those show nothing of the sort. Wish someone would actually read the materials before writing the summary.
Well, the second image does show ads for Filemaker and Peoplesoft, sandwiched between ads for help with learning or using Access. The Filemaker ad specifically positions it as an alternative to Access, and it can be assumed that the Peoplesoft ad is also offering an alternative, though I don't really see Access and Peoplesoft as competitors.
The first image is an example e-mail that actually suggests that Excel and Access files are so valuable to the business that they should be protected from loss by getting them backed up to a network drive, with no implication that the files pose security risks, so the summary's characterization of that is completely off-base.
Out of curiosity, what is your position on the non-advertising content suggestions mentioned in the patent? For example, if someone e-mails an address to a Gmail user, does it constitute reaming of the sender's privacy for Google's systems to recognize that it's an address and to offer the user a map?
What about other sorts of automated analysis not mentioned in the patent? For example, content analysis for automatic classification, such as the priority inbox feature which sorts e-mail into "important" and "everything else" categories, or the new inbox that optionally sorts e-mail into "primary", "social", "promotions", "updates" and "forums" categories, presented on different tabs. Is that reaming of the sender's privacy, too? The content analysis seems like it would be quite similar in procedure, just a different application. Probably a bit more personalized than the advertising analysis, actually.
While I'm at it, what about automated content analysis for spam filtering and virus detection? Is that also privacy reaming?
I'm curious where you draw the line, and on what basis. Personally, I don't see any sort of automated analysis whose results are presented only to the recipient of the e-mail as a breach of privacy of the sender, who sent the information to the recipient. I draw the line based on who sees the information, both original and the results of the analysis, and especially on what information made available to third parties can be tied to the people/accounts from which it originated or to which it is related. On that basis, I don't see any privacy issues with Gmail.
But others see things differently, so I'd like to understand what your criteria are.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, though the above represents only my personal opinion, not any sort of company policy statement. For that matter, I held the same opinion before I began working for Google, so I can safely say that my employment has not altered it.)
Much as everyone on here loved to crow about how Google were being evil and locking the device down, isn't this the far more likely reason? An undocumented API has changed. Now can we stop overreacting? Locking down this device isn't really their style.
No, their style will be to cancel the device/services with some warning and litle explanation.
Cancel the system that's bringing YouTube (and its ads) into the living room? Seems very unlikely. In general, Google only discontinues services that aren't very successful (no, Reader wasn't very widely used, in spite of the heat generated by its fans). Successful services that are generating revenue are expanded. Successful services that aren't generating revenue are monetized. Unsuccessful services are discontinued if it looks like they're not going to become successful.
The Chromecast seems to be very successful, and to have an obvious and successful revenue model in place (YouTube). I don't think it's going anywhere.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but don't speak for Google.)
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. -- John Kenneth Galbraith