Agreed. I was responding to hashkb as to why they might think they could install it widely without having more than 38 licenses. It also seems like a valid reason to ask for the phone-home mechanism to be removed without malicious intent to subvert licensing restrictions.
Using a central license server can be used to license the number of concurrent users. I've installed software on thousands of computers as part of a base image that only had 25 concurrent licenses paid for. The usage pattern meant that we rarely exceeded the number of concurrent license, but the software was widely used enough that it made sense to deploy everywhere. In the end we also asked for the limitation to be removed because of several issues (eg; the check out process for off-network usage was cumbersome and locked up licenses for too long, the license server wasn't great at releasing license and we'd frequently have to manual release them). After monitoring our usage over a period of time the software company agreed that removing the license server was the best option to address the issues. I have no knowledge of this case, but this is one scenario where the number of licenses would be so much lower than the number of installs.
- I haven't seen one media story about this yet, outside of social media.
I also live in michigan and both of the major detroit newspapers had this on the front page early this morning [0][1].
- Tesla isn't a name brand here like Ford or GM. In fact, if you asked a lot of people if we should help the Big Three with this sort of legislation, you might be surprised by the answer. Remember, they generate a LOT of jobs in this state: not just the Big Three, but the tier 2 and tier 3 manufactors. While I think logic would win out in the day, I wouldn't assume that everybody in Michigan _wants_ Tesla. It isn't in their best interest.
This is about helping dealerships, not manufacturers so you'd think that any support for the Big Three manufactures wouldn't correlate with support for this bill.
in context we get about 40%-60% higher conversion rate depending on the use case and have over a 95% success rate. we have a lightbox mode that makes it really apparent what you are doing and only has you attempt a captcha after you submit and the form is validated.
I'm note sure you can get a 10% success rate, if you have let us know, we'd love to hear about it. Note that our demo page has the threshold set to almost nothing and other security features disabled.
Totally agree that we could detect patterns and behaviors without the captcha. Baby steps, though. We'll get there.
Ha. Looks like the domain is available. In reality we were initially targeting users in the US, but have had a lot of interest internationally. Most just use it as is, but we have had others pay for translation or custom games.
We are also planning on a set culturally agnostic (as well as culturally specific) games. If you go to our homepage and refresh through the games you'll see a shape game, that has no language for an example.
Actually, we should be worked be ADA compliant and have worked to make this accessible.
Screen readers should pick up the alternate text.
<a href="#" style="position:absolute;left:-10000px;top:auto;width:1px;height:1px;overflow:hidden;">Please complete this audio captcha before submitting the form</a>
Also, I know the audio sucks, but it's the most secure out there, otherwise it would just be a giant hole for bots to get through. It's one of the things we want to make better.
In fact, we've experimented with audio games and had some good results.
Thanks for asking. First, our main focus is on making something more usable for people. We also think captchas are only part of the solution and should be employed with other things (rate limiting, keyword filtering, etc)
That being said, we don't just ignore security. There are a lot of captcha alternatives out there that survive on just obscurity, if they were widely adopted, they wouldn't take much to get around (like a slide to unlock captcha). We analyze mouse movement and other behavior, to avoid this.
To test our algorithms, we write our own bots to break our game (as well as working with the AI lab at the university of michigan) and use that data in our machine learning algorithms. We're always tweaking the bot to see how we can beat it and then looking for new features from the data that we can use.
The main point being, that as people do write bots, we can learn from that and incorporate it. We can also adjust the threshold. Some of our customers care much more about usability and just want a minimum level of protection, other's want the threshold a little higher and accept the risk that humans might fail more often.
Thanks. We certainly don't want to become the equivalent of 'catch the monkey' We constantly do UX testing. Early on it was an issue that people thought we were just and ad on the page, but we updated our start screen and design. By default, we also show our games in a modal window after people click submit, so they know they have to do it. With these two things we saw registrations increase by 40% over recaptcha.
We're also getting ready to roll out an update to our API that will allow you to hide/disable the submit button until the game is played. Our testing showed this helped increase submission rates even more.
Finally, we are also trying different styles of games to see what people respond to best.
We launched in January and are using games to make them easier for people. Some of our early testing showed captchas can decrease signups by up to 25% and we're able to recover almost all of that.
We also monitor how you play the game (like mouse movement) so we can ramp up our security without having to make the task more difficult for people. Read more here http://areyouahuman.com/how-playthru-stops-the-bots