Not necessarily possible even with the private keys. If you use an SSL cipher with ephemeral keys, such as the DHE_* or ECDHE_* family of ciphers, then an eavesdropper with a recorded but not MITMed conversation cannot decrypt it even with the server's private SSL key.
Which of course they do not. Google uses ECDHE_RSA. DDG uses RSA. ixquick, "the world's most private search engine", uses RSA. Bing does not even offer https.
Google does pin their keys in Chrome though, so they know if there is a MITM (and they have, Chrome's certificate pinning led to DigiNotar's downfall). It's a non-scalable hack, but definitely a good one for the largest search engine and a leading email provider to be able to provide.
IIRC it depends how the ads are routed. The ads could be piped through duckduckgo so Bing only receives searches to return contextual ads for but has no knowledge of the IPs for each search. Duckduckgo then embeds the ads in the search page and returns it to the searcher, then forgets their IP.
On the other hand if there's just a bit of javascript on the search page that says "Tell bing to put ads on this page using the search bar text" then bing would be able to link the search to an IP and you lose your privacy.
I was looking into this recently, and I found this, on the FAQ:
"Ads cannot be retrieved from the developer directly but instead through the end user's browser. Calling for the Ads from a server will lead to detection and termination of the customer."
This doesn't look good for ghostery but hypothetically both of these statements can be true.
They may be referring to the idea that they don't sell an individuals data, only massed results, so no one can be singled out. This is how census data is used, the data itself is never sold but companies can ask for certain queries to be done on the data which are then performed by the census bureau and returned to the client.
Our media does an amazing job at presenting labor and liberal as the only two options. Especially by suggesting that voting third party is throwing your vote away (which it isn't because of our preference system).
I have no faith in Australian politics anymore, every campaign seems to be entirely focused around mud slinging and fear mongering.
Based on coverage, there are three major parties. The only microparty that gets any coverage is the Australian Sex Party and that's only because of the undergraduate boorishness of their name.
Katter and Palmer will get coverage this time in the "lighter side" columns and then we'll go back to having the majors take turns at the Treasury benches while the Greens get to pretend they are a genuine alternative because nobody actually reads their policies.
I miss the Democrats. They were boring centrists and it was wonderful.
The DLP had the benefit of a number of favourable preference deals, but nobody noticed or cared until a DLP Senator was elected. But the ASP got widespread coverage.
Family First gets coverage because they are very good at faking noise and movement. They learnt well from previous generations of protest movement. The body of media hadn't yet innoculated themselves against it in the way they have against weekly the National Days of Action and Marches Against Whatever that take place in Sydney and Melbourne CBDs every 20 minutes.
No one said it would be MORE complicated than the examples.
"Would also be interesting" and "fun to compare" give no implication of relative difficulty. I would like to see the algorithm though so please post the code if you get it working in JS! That would be awesome!
It is actually slightly more complicated. The existing effects work in GLSL and are just transforming single frames of video. For that effect to work, you need the previous buffer states; this means that seeking will cause the image to be different, and you need to feed the previous render state back as a texture.
You still need to remove the green-screen. This either means an expensive process on the CPU side, or pushing the frame to the GPU to remove it with a shader and then using RTT and rendering that or reading the framebuffer and drawing that to a canvas. Note, it's really not difficult to do this, it's just slightly more complex than the other effects, is all.
Well no, because each frame builds on all the frames before it. Either way, seeking is still broken unless you run through all the frames up to that point.
Each frame has the greenscreen turned into a fully transparent pixel, then gets blitted onto a buffer containing all of the existing buffer's data. That means that for each frame, you're building on the data from every frame that came before. This is fine if you're playing from beginning to end, but when you seek, you're going to break that continuity.
Yes, you do need to process from beginning to end. If you look at the original video, you see that each frame builds on the one before it, which builds on the one before that. Remember, the buffer is never cleared -- it's just overwritten with a few new pixels (the dude moving) each room.
I find it strange that there is pressure from companies advertising on facebook about this. They signed up for ads on a user generated content site and then are displeased with some of the content?
Why are they even concerned about this? "Sexual assualt 'humor'" is in the extreme minority of posts on facebook. Maybe they don't want their ads next to it but that's what they signed up for. They wanted their ads next to whatever people posted on facebook knowing that the content was out of their control.
Maybe they didn't anticipate that a site that rigorously polices (for example) breast-feeding pictures and race hate material wouldn't rigorously police "rape a bitch" image macros.
They have discovered that having their ads next to this sort of content is not what they signed up for, after all, and are planning to unsign up for this stuff. Companies change their minds all the time about where they advertise - advertising on a service isn't some sort of lifetime promise.
I'm not sure his comment was disingenuous. But you're right, it's bizarre that FB jumps to remove breast feeding images and yet leaves the most vile rubbish untouched. And unsurprising activists are targeting advertisers after repeatedly getting nowhere with FB itself.
I will not be sad to see "rape a bitch" macros go but having their ads next to stuff like this is exactly what they signed up for. They signed up for their ads to be displayed next to whatever anyone posted.
Anyone who has used the internet for any length of time knows there are large amounts of disturbing content on it which will definitely spill into any user generated content site. I find it hard to believe that 15 separate companies failed to realise this, especially since I would expect their advertising departments to be well read on "the internet".
What I think may be happening is one company latching onto a group of activists with a very reasonable request to get some positive press and a bunch of companies "me too"ing along behind them. 4 companies were named in this article and 2 of them got airtime on NBC with the most inoffensive sound byte ever ("we are against rape"). That's free TV air time in a news slot appealing to your core demographic.
They signed up for having their ads shown next to content that is within Facebook's posting guidelines. Or else why not advertise on /b/ if you truly had no qualms about the content?
While I don't discount that they're going to get some press over this, raising issues over Facebook tacitly supporting rape culture is perfectly acceptable for a company.
Facebook is a private company and depends on income from advertisers to provide a "free" service. So in reality it is the advertisers who control Facebook I would say, and therefore have some weight to throw around.
They obviously have weight to throw around, but it seems really odd that they are getting into the arena, and then complaining about the conditions (even though they should have known what they were getting in for when they threw in).
Out of curiosity, would it be illegal to do that? I mean ethically it's definitely wrong, and I'm sure it's illegal to sell it to someone if you know they are going to try and exploit it for profit, is there a technical loophole to hide behind?
Say, you sell it to someone and to the best of your knowledge they want to claim the reward for themselves. To justify the increased price you received by selling it to a third party instead of submitting it for the bug reward you could say that the third party intends to claim the bug as his own work and the professional cred they'll receive justifies the increased price.
Well, the US government buys exploits from people [1], which means it must be legal in the US. The government would never do anything against the law, right?
I just checked. You can't buy Game of Thrones season 3 via iTunes in the USA, but it looks like you could buy it in Australia. I tried buying an episode from the Australian iTunes store, but no luck.
Season 3 isn't out on itunes in Canada at all yet. The only way for me to watch Season 3 is to subscribe to the $100/month + $20/month cable package that carries HBO.
There's a way to trick your iTunes into thinking you're not in Canada. All you need is a second account and a gift card situated in the US. (I've seen people in the US use this trick in reverse to get BBC shows in America without pirating them.) Granted, it's retarded (and potentially still illegal) that people should have to do this in order to pay for content rather than pirate...but the option is there.
I'm not setting up umpteen different itunes accounts to try to give you my money. The whole point of paying for something is that I provide the money in exchange for the product. Why should I jump through hoops in addition to that?
There are easier options if I care. But to be honest, right now I don't.
It is interesting, I don't think it will actually help them much. If you have Foxtel already you can likely get the whole of showtime for around the same price your paying on itunes for Game of Thrones. (While the season is going and there are day 4 eps a month.)
Not sure they are going to convince people that don't have Foxtel that they should pay $60+ a month for the service purely on the back of Game of Thrones.
Especially since the only part of the market they can hope to capture with this move is "people who already pay for game of thrones legally over itunes". I would think that most of those people also know how to torrent but choose not to and foxtel just pissed them off, I doubt they happily switch services.
That last statement is wildly speculative. More likely is that it's because some key genes are present on the X chromosome but not on the Y chromosome. The same reason colour blindness is much more prevalent in males.
The real reason is that these genes sit on the x chromosome, which makes it possible for women to be heterozygotes. If one of the receptors is mutated and color-shifted, then women will be homozygous for the wavelengths of two of the three receptors, but heterozygous for the remaining receptor, which gives her two more wavelengths to interpret. Therefore, she will have a four-dimensional color space. A male with the same mutation does not have a normal copy of the gene, so still only sees three-dimensional color, with the third dimension different from what most of the rest of us see, which manifests as a type of color blindness, since the rest of society has engineered the world for normal RGB people.
