Oh look, you forgot to include the list again.
On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:54, Eric Gorr wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Stut wrote:
Eric...
1) Quoting an NYT blog as an authority on technical matters is both
naive and asking for it. The mainstream press have never used
industry-specific terminology correctly, and they probably never
will. Hacker vs. cracker is the best example of this.
It is entirely legitimate to use words like crack or cracked in
either a narrow or broad sense. That you would assert they can or
should only be used in their narrowest sense is, well, ignorant. I
used the article, not as an authority on technical matters, but only
to show that there are people out there will to pay others to crack
captcha's. That you do not recognize this only demonstrates a severe
lack of intelligence on your part.
Wow, straight in there with the personal insults. Please take a moment
to consider the possibility that you're wrong. If they're paying
others to develop software to get past CAPTCHA's then I'd agree with
you. Using humans to get past a CAPTCHA test is not breaking it, it's
solving it in the way it was meant to be solved. The fact that it's
being done for evil purposes doesn't enter into it.
2) CAPTCHA's have one single purpose... to prevent automated form
posting. Any system that uses humans to get past them is not
"breaking the CAPTCHA", or cracking it or any other terminology you
decide to use.
Captcha's have one single purpose... to make it that much more
difficult for an evil doer to spam a site or use it to spam. Any
system that uses humans to get past them is "breaking the Captcha"
despite your need to limit the use of english words and phrases to
only their narrowest sense.
You see what you did there? You completely ignored my definition of
what a CAPTCHA is and went back to your definition. Where's the wiggle
room? I'll say it one more time... when a human gets past a CAPTCHA
test they have "solved" it. When a machine does it they've "broken"
it. One word, big difference.
3) This list is self-moderating so your pleas to the PHP webmaster,
list moderator and $DEITY (you'd have gotten to her in the end) are
pointless beyond their comedic value.
Then, hopefully the other list members will take it upon themselves
to request these pointless public posts come to an end. I doubt he
would listen, but there is always hope.
Hold on to the hope Eric, and don't forget your daily prayer to the
fairies at the bottom of your garden.
4) Rob is one of the most valuable members of this mailing list ...
don't take him on, you'll lose!!
That only makes it even more interesting to watch him spam a mailing
list and attempt to provoke a public flame war on a mailing list
that he would now falsely claim to care about.
Rob is the last person I would expect to intentionally provoke a flame
war, in public or in private. If someone disagrees with you it's not
necessarily because they're trying to pick a fight, it's almost
certainly because they think differently. Nothing more, nothing less.
This discussion is no longer adding value publicly or privately so
don't expect another response from me. If you feel you need to use
this opportunity to have the last word feel free.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
