Anyone remember Transmeta? ...... Exactly.
182 posts • joined 9 Oct 2013
If the system is really using SHA or similar hashes on exact byte streams, then you're right about the practical impossibility of generating colliding hashes, but then the system is also utterly useless in what it's designed for, because a simple recoding of the pictures into another format, slight changes to gamma or aspect ratio, or even saving with a different compression, etc. will all change the bytes of the image, and thus allow evade detection.
However, it's more likely that when Apple is referring to "hashes", they actually just mean some kind of fingerprinting technology, that's not working on explicit byte streams, but analyzes the contents and composition of the image (and Apple is only using the term "hashes" because "fingerprinting" would cause confusion and associations Apple doesn't want to foster). In this case recoding or distorting the picture will not hinder detection, so the system is generally fit for the purpose it's supposedly intended for, but the hash-collision considerations don't apply anymore either, and it will be a lot easier to find or even possibly generate images that will be falsely identified as matches by the system.
The latter will also mean that no defense lawyer and court will allow anyone to be prosecuted just because a matching "hash" was found on their iPhones, and cops will have to somehow retrieve the actual images in order to prosecute someone, which however will clash with precedents set Apple prior to this and their refusal to unlock devices of suspected criminals.
Either way it looks like this whole child protection initiative from Apple is either is an umbrella/cover operation for something more sinister and is designed to enable scans/searches way beyond just child abuse images to begin with (which would make a lot of sense), or Apple has been again proved to be incompetent at addressing some technical problem, and shoot itself in the foot when they failed to assess the backlash this was actually generating.
A 11 year old that's already obsessed with immortality is definitely a case for some serious psychotherapy. Also the fact that he doesn't realize that even if he'd be successfully able to replace his body parts with mechanical ones wouldn't allow him to reach any kind of actual immortality (and at our current technological level would actually shorten his lifespan dramatically) makes it clear that he's not as smart as some try to make that out.
.. is the term DARPA doesn't seem to know, and want to reinvent, despite being like half a century old.
I myself have written remote control software for slow modems (1200-9600 bauds) that used it and only sent those regions of the screen over the cable that have actually changed, reducing typical bandwidth usage by >95%.
Russia simply can not afford to build a space station of its own, and it wouldn't make any sense either. This is just one of Putin's empty promises whose only purpose is to stop the further tanking of his popularity. It's his version of building a wall at the Mexican border.
"the company is not entirely opposed to paying publishers but opposes the arbitration model. "
Google definitely does not oppose an arbitration model. But it opposes a model in which it's not them who's the arbiter that can force his arbitrary pricing, conditions and and decisions on others.
Also the paragraph at the end about ACCC makes it obvious that there's not substantial change planned to the model of the law, despite of what Google's saying. Which is a good thing.
Google and all other companies which make their living off taking other people's stuff and not paying anything in return needs to be stopped, and this is the first step. And the arbiters of prices should definitely not be these companies, but those who actually own the stuff that's used by them.
If Google or Facebook think they're providing actual value "in return" to content creators with their "services", then they are free to put a price on that, too, and let creators decide whether they really think it's worth that and are ready to pay that. But one has nothing to do with the other, and Google and Facebook shouldn't be allowed dictate terms on both.
" doing so hurts publishers because the ads and search giant sends so much traffic their way. "
Nope. Google merely redistributes the existing traffic. People will still get their news somewhere - it will just not be through Google News or through sites that rank high in Google News, but some other way and possibly at other outlets.
And that's exactly the point here. News sites, as a whole, owe Google nothing, and do not depend on Google (again, as a whole, not a few particular site who got good at gaming Google's system or are ranked high for some other reasons). It's Google who's using news sites' content to make a profit off that and to extend its control over web publishers. And that's the reason why it should pay up.
And, yet, 10 years later, after the tablet fad is mostly gone, iPad is nothing more than the ultimate technological failure. A solution still looking for a problem, even more so than it did when it was first introduced. There's nothing a tablet is good at that other kinds of devices would be better at. Then again, isn't this the very definition of virtually every Apple device ever?
This post has been deleted by a moderator
It makes no sense for Microsoft to prolong the support of the Exchange server, but not that of the Windows Server it runs on. So, I'm pretty sure that they will announce shortly that they have also extended the free support end for Windows Server 2008. They just don't want to make the announcement too early, because that would stop a lot of people from migrating to a newer version of Windows Server already now.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I bet most developers don't even realize they're actually using Microsoft's cloud platform on a daily basis, because, well, GitHub is owned by Microsoft, and is hosted obviously on Azure. So, in reality most likely the majority of developers are actually using Microsoft's cloud platform, and more than they realize. But even if they wouldn't, it's mostly irrelevant what cloud platform developers are using, because they're an irrelevant minority amongst cloud users. And JetBrains' survey is not representative of the developer community anyway.
"If this law goes through, you won't have another search engine to go to. Did you think this will only apply to Google?"
Do you really think Google will actually abandon the whole EU? It will not. Google's just using empty threats here to avoid having to pay. But if they will not be able to avoid it, they will very well pay up. And rightly so.
"In what world is anyone forced to supply something to someone because they demand it and want to charge them for it?"
Exactly. What you don't get is, however, that in this case the publishers are the ones who are expected and even forced (by strongarming them and by abuse of market power) by Google to supply content into its services, just so Google can slap and ads on them and sell that as a product, while not paying anything back to the original producers.
"If the EU is saying what Google are doing is wrong "
No, the EU absolutely does not say that. All it says is that you must pay the original creators of content, not just take their stuff for free and use it to generate money without paying anything back.
"So are the EU/Media companies saying you mustn't link to us or that you must link to us. "
No. Articles 11 is not about linking, and not about any kind of prohibition to link to anywhere. It's just Google trying to mislead the public about what this is really about so they will sympathize with their agenda. Just another reason not to give in to Google, if for nothing else, then because of this shameless lying and manipulation of public opinion.
"Hating Google does not make everything they say wrong."
Saying that hating Google does not make everything they say wrong doesn't make anything they say right.
"The claim that link taxes hurt the businesses they were supposed to help has been tested and found to be true - twice."
No, it wasn't. What was proven was that if you leave this an option and not compulsory then a large entity like Google can strongarm smaller businesses into whatever it wants them to do, and can play them against each other.
"News sites in Spain "
No, it wasn't "news sites in Spain". It was "_some_ news sites in Spain". You can't do justice for everyone. Also shilling.
"Google can promptly stop linking to any site demanding money."
No, they can't. I mean theoretically they could, but in reality they will not as long as the fee they have pay is compulsory, and they can't play publishers against each other. Google simply can not afford to exclude the whole EU from its index, because competitors willing jump in no time in its place.
"Think of the smaller sites, having to check every hour to see if the target of any link has started asking for money."
Yeah, that's not how Article 11 works. You don't actually have to pay for links - and it's not a tax either. It's just Google trying to reframe Article 11 as a "link tax" to scare ignorant people and to build on the general hatred against taxes.
"Please take a two minute break from your hatred each day to think of something that will actually do some good."
Please take two minutes to read up on what actually Article 11 is about before spreading misinformation as a consequence of your ignorance. Thanks.
" and the link you provide describes a technique that would not have helped in that case"
So, yeah, that technique would not have helped in the case... because that problem OP complained about doesn't even exist as such in node.js
Then you must have looked a very, very long time ago, possibly in a galaxy far, far away: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity
Author has obviously zero understanding of how cookies work:
"Or, in other words, tracking code would be controlled by a browser through a secure HTTP header (a unique 256-bit value) passed along when someone visits a given website, rather than held on the server."
Cookies are already passed in HTTP headers, and cookies are already not stored on the server-side. That's essentially the definition of cookies (ie. information not stored on the server side passed back and forth in HTTP headers), so, this new "secure tokens" thing definitely can't work like this.
"The flaw itself is found in the JavaVM component of Oracle Database Server and is not considered a remote code exploit flaw, as it requires the attacker have a connection to the server via Oracle Net, the protocol Oracle servers use to connect with client applications"
It's not a remote exploit, because it requires a connection to the server? That's the very definition of a remote exploit, ie. that it can be execute over a network connection, and does not require local access to the target.
People don't buy WD drives anymore because of how they handle warranty. When their drives fail - in larger numbers than drives from other manufacturers - and you send them back in to WD for warranty replacement, they will send you out refurb replacement drives, that will die in a short time again. And when you send also that in, they send you sub-par refurb drives again.
Then you just give up and will never ever buy again a WD drive. Even if its an SSD, because... well... it's still the same company with the same - virtually non-existent - warranty service.
Problem is: some attitudes or phenomena associated more closely or intensely with a race or a gender per se is not a proof of neither racism nor that of sexism - just like Paris being more closely associated with France than with England isn't the result of some form of nationalism either. It's just a pure fact and a valid observation. Which could very well be the case with any or all race or gender "stereotypes".
Only if they could prove that those associations were or are unsubstantiated, and are only the result of prejudice or discrimination - now, that could prove racism or sexism. But until they do that, the results do not actually mean and prove what they are trying to (falsely) conclude from them.
And do not even get me started about how the AI they were using (or any current "AI" for that matter) could possibly not have actually understood the true meaning of the textual resources it were fed to, and how it would have most likely classified even anti-racism and anti-sexism materials (which we, as humanity, have generated in large amounts in the last 50-60 years or so) as sexist or racist - at least in this analysis -, because simply and obviously these texts also carry heavy proximities in between of word (and generally an abundance of words), which are associated with sexism or racism, while the texts themselves being the antithesises of these ideas, and their pure existence in a large number the counterproof is these ideas being widespread and/or accepted in society.
Nobody wants you to visit their site, you dummy. They want to make money off you (so they can cover their expenses and get their paycheck at the end of the week/month, like you do). You visiting the site is not their goal and not what they ultimately want, but only a means to an end. So, if they can't make money off your visit, because you're blocking their ads/miners/etc, then they DO NOT want you to visit their sites. Get it?
Not that it wouldn't be dumb to say that it's THEY who would owe you, when in fact it's YOU who is using their services and consuming their content - so, it's you who should pay up. Just saying...
It just always amazes me how all these stupid ad blockers think that they can somehow "outsmart" the system and reap/rape it, for their own benefit. Like, you know, how they think they'll somehow "win" or gain something when they successfully block ads; when they put cryptominers into VMs with limited resources; or somehow bypass any new mechanisms and ways publishers might come up with and employ to generate some revenue.
Here's a news flash for all your morons: you can't outsmart the system. And that not only because you're too stupid to outsmart it in the first place, but also because you can't change the fact, that from nothing comes nothing. Whenever you somehow successfully thwart (usually by some solution developed by people far smart than you, and only taking advantage and using you, as their pawns) the publishers' attempt to generate revenue to sustain their publications (ie. to pay for their serves, their bills, their employees, etc), you're not actually winning anything, and you're not actually making anything better - not even for yourself.
Rather, what you do is force the publishers' hands to find new ways to make somehow money off you (because you know, servers just won't magically sell for free, paychecks won't write and pay themselves, etc. just because you are blocking ads, cryptominers, etc). Which in turns will not only give you now something new you will - not really have to, but want to - combat the same way you did with the previous thing (and thus arrive at the very same point you started off, to begin with), but because development, deployment and operation of more elaborate schemes to generate income will generally cost more, they will now have to make even more money off you, which in another turn will mean, that it will get even more costly and cumbersome for you to somehow try to thwart that new way of money generation. If you will be able to do that, at all.
So, with all that pointless and futile blocking, all you can achieve is even more problems for yourself in the medium and long term, even more wasted resources, without actually getting anywhere. And if somehow you could really stop any and all means the publishers might come up with for generating revenue to cover their costs, then the only thing you could ultimately achieve is, that you drive any and all honest publications out of business. So, you will have nowhere to go for the content and services you're otherwise obviously very much not only enjoying, but also depending on, on a daily basis.
How stupid you have to be to not be able to realize that? Obviously, very, very stupid.
An don't even get me started about how a lot of other major problems these days, like the proliferation of fake news, state-sponsored manipulation, etc. are all related to and the direct results of ad blocking, that's depriving independent and honest working journalists and other people of their well-earned and legal income, and only letting shady, state-sponsored publications to proliferate and spread propaganda!
PS: I'm keenly awaiting your downvotes, which I know will come in large numbers, as most of you simply can't face these facts - which, however, won't make them any less of a fact.
"That brought in more money than the supposedly individually targeted ads we get today."
That was because the ratio of demand and offer were different back then. Starting a publication required a lot of capital and up front investment, so there were only a few publications - and they all had limited spaces (pages) for the ads. However, nowadays anyone can start their publication (website, blog, facebook page, youtube channel) etc for practically free, and they can generate and add any number of pages, videos, etc. - which means that there's an almost unlimited increase in offers (for ad spaces), which in turns lowers prices dramatically.
So, it's not like targeted ads wouldn't work better, than untargeted ones - because they obviously do work a lot better. It's just that the rate they increase efficiency is just nowhere close to be able to compensate for the enormous drop in the prices of ads, that happened for reasons unrelated to them.
A clueless one has spoken again. Hosting ad servicing - or any web service for that matter - on their own is about the worst thing a publisher can do. Why? Because they won't have dedicated and properly educated staff for doing that - and that will leave them (and through them their readers) more prone to attacks by hackers, than if they'd just have let a far larger company, specializing in that stuff, do that for them.
The argument that every site should host their ads, because that would be somehow safer or better by any means is as stupid, as arguing that everybody should raise their own cattle or grow their own food, make their own equipment and tools, sew their own cloths, etc. It just makes no sense, not only in the economic sense, but also in regards of security. Because a single person or a few persons doing everything can't possibly reach the level sophistication at anything (including security) that a group of highly specialized experts can reach.
So, no, ads should be NOT be served locally, by every and each website, but by large ad networks - both because of economic, and also because of security reasons. Obviously nothing is and can be 100% secure, but a large company specializing in a niche field (like ad serving) can secure their servers magnitudes better and make them work more effective, than can Average Blogger Joe or even a medium-size media company could.
But then again, we all know, all this "ads are a security risk" is just a stupid excuse, made up by weak minded sociopaths, in an attempt to justify robbing honest working bloggers/journalists/publishers or their well-deserved income, so they (ie. the blockers) can deluded themselves in being control of and over something in their pitiful lives, otherwise hopelessly controlled by people a lot smarter than them.
1. doesn't count unique users - let alone installations -, but page views
2. their statistics are not representative.
Because of that, their numbers are practically irrelevant and non-indicative, when it comes to market share of operating systems, browsers, etc. The fact they don't even know that, makes just it obvious how amateurish they are and operate.
"Firefox is corporation, even if it doesn't have investors. Has to pay the bills somehow, and with sponsorship deals with Google and Yahoo fading away (in different ways)"
In reality Mozilla made more money from these sponsorship agreements last year, than ever before (>half a billion dollars), and more money it could ever possibly spend on actual and useful development.
This latest attempt of their is really just about greed, and is anti-competitive anyway. Obviously a browser manufacturer should not be allowed to show ads of their own when at the same time they partially or fully blocking their competitors from doing the same.
So, your argument is, that if he admits to have done something he's accused of, he's guilty; and if he denies an allegation, he's guilty - because you know he did it anyway, right?
And don't even get me started how a proposition can't be a harassment per se, and if it ever will be, the human race will just die out.
Can we compile Kaspersky AV binaries from that source code, and run that on our computers? Can we do the same with any and all updates to the software? If not, this "offer" is worthless.
Also, I rather doubt that Kaspersky's update process wouldn't have the ability to run any arbitrary code (either directly or by loading a freshly downloaded executable library in memory), at which point they're proven to have built a possible backdoor into their software.
... and Shaun Nichols still doesn't get it, that it's virtually impossible to create flawless software, and that because of that there will be always new vulnerabilities discovered in them, especially if they're as widespread, as large and their development is as fast-paced, as is Windows'.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021