It's unlikely that monitoring would save the companies hundreds of dollars per day. Competition would prevent the difference in cost from being grossly disproportionate to the amount that monitoring would save.
I worked for a medium-sized IT consulting firm. When we moved into a larger office space, they saved money by making everyone in the office make patch cables. Office Admin., everybody. Glad I was billable:)
This is irrational. The cost, in terms of time spent by employees, must have been much higher than if the cable were mass produced. It sounds more like somebody saved money on a purchasing budget but lost the company money overall.
And middle income workers would only benefit later in their careers if the markets are doing reasonably well at that time. If their late careers are spent during a period like the 1970's or - heaven forbid - the great depression, they could be wiped out.
Of course, one could shift an increasing proportion of one's assets into safer investments the closer one gets to retirement.
The Social Security trust fund actually owns bonds, whose rate of return has outstripped that of the stock market over certain extended periods of time (for example, during most of the 1970's), especially when you account for inflation, brokerage fees, etc.
But the bonds in question don't earn money by being invested in anything. They're issued by the government to itself and it simply pays their interest out of general tax revenues. Clearly, the government can give itself bonds that earn any interest rate whatsoever; this does not impress me. Loaning itself money is functionally different from investing it in something. It simply amounts to an accounting gimmick to cause part of the cost of Social Security to show up under "interest payments on the national debt" or something like that.
You seem to be unfamiliar with mathematical proofs. Grinding through many cases does not a valid proof make. In order to prove a theorem, you have to verify its validity for ALL cases, and in order to disprove a theorem, you only have to find one case where it is not valid. Just because you ran your theorem on a supercomputer for three months does not mean you have proved its validity for all cases. Example: You are trying to prove some theorem, and you use only positive integers. The supercomputer runs for a year and finds no holes in your theorem. Then your girlfriend comes over and enters -1, and your supercomputer barfs at you.
You seem to be unfamiliar the concept of proof by cases. A proof by cases is valid if and only if the cases are exhaustive. For example, if you prove something for all even numbers and all odd numbers, you have proven it for all integers. The proof of the Four Color Theorem broke the problem, or some lemma used in the problem, into around 1000 cases. The cases were exhaustive, or it would not have been a proof. Some curmudgeons didn't like the fact that the cases were checked by computer.
As I've told some of the marketing droids so confident that they would "never" misuse information gathered by shopping cards, if they truly respected my concerns there would be a basket of shopper cards at the service counter and I could just grab one and walk away. They could collect all of the information they wanted about me... except who I am.
And how old you are, and what sex you are, etc. Also, how do you propose they get people to keep the cards in their wallet rather than throwing them away and grabbing a new one next time?
One cannot "solve" chess or any game requiring two or more participants for that matter.
Put another way, how does one solve "poker"?
Let's play a game requiring two participants, which is therefore unsolvable.
I have here three rows of coins:
OOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO
On each move, a player may take away as many coins as he wants from a single row, but only one row, and he must take at least one coin. The winner is the player who takes away the last coin. You go first.
To sum up my point, early on in the game there is no one move that will always lead to victory, regardless of the opponent's moves. Hence, the original idea of pre-calculating a decision tree for the entire game and then only picking moves that result in a win simply cannot work.
You can't possibly know that there is no such move early on in the game, unless you've pre-calculated the entire game of chess yourself. It seems likely that chess is a draw (that is, if both players pre-calculate the entire game, they will draw). However, no one knows for sure.
That's interesting, but I still say that the user is solely liable for his data. I don't fully trust third-party encryption because anyone could have a master key or a back door, no one knows for sure what interests all go into things like this. The only safe way is to use your own homemade ciphers, assuming that you're not a total idiot.
If you're smart enough to make your own ciphers, you're smart enough to examine others' ciphers and determine whether they're good or not. Furthermore, many people will have investigated the security of well-known ciphers, but that will not be true of ciphers you create yourself. There's no reason to make your own cipher.
The motor power required, some 300 watts, would impose a rather heavy loading on the computer's power supply, though.
I don't think I'd be comfortable with something spinning that quickly in my machine. If I tapped it accidentally, would it rip through the plastic and come flying out of my computer? Perhaps maiming bystanders? Hmmm...
The solution is provided in the article:
CD-ROM drives of the 64x CLV class and higher, should be provided with shrapnel protection of no less than 3 mm aluminium or 1 mm steel.
That's the beautiful thing about a site that doesn't fund themselves through the use of banner ads. It doesn't MATTER if you access their content through the main website, an affiliate like yahoo, or an api interface.
They sells text ads on their main site. Yahoo pays them a fee. So how will the API users pay for themselves?
It has been often said that, in order to stop pirates, the recording industry could employ teams of virus programmers (they could afford them), to create uber-virii, which they could then distribute through file-sharing programs.
Why would one execute what one believes is an audio file?
At which point your users finally found a password that the system would allow them to use, and, bitter and pissed off, wrote it on a Post-It? note and stuck it to their monitor.
But that's no less secure than using "password" or "".
IBM has some pretty nice new security that allows for even the HDDs within laptops to be locked up, even when the HDDs are removed from the machine and put in another machine. Pretty nice for securing data, and would have been nice for the company to know that the data couldn't be accessed.
Please. If I stole a laptop for the purpose of corporate espionage, I think I would have the resources to swap the drive electronics, or, if all else fails, the platters. If you want to secure your data, encrypt it.
If your server is in a oversized closet opening into an inside room, then the odds of someone actually doing something with it from the outside is pretty slim.
Why would anyone want to know what's on the screen of a server in a closet? Getting a screen image is probably only useful if a human is sitting at and using a computer. Humans often try to get offices with windows.
Sorry but the premise just seems questionable given that computer screens usually have P22 phosphor, which has a decay of, or so I've heard, about 100 usecs for the blue and green, and up to 1000 usec for the red, yet this paper shows their test case shows a 90% decline (to 10%) in about 0.55 usecs.
Human vision is approximately logarithmic in its perception of intensity. A search with Google should confirm this if you don't believe me. Thus, the exponential drop in that graph is not an exponential drop in the perceived intensity. Furthermore, CRTs work because of persistence of vision. If a CRT were frozen in time, only a fraction of the screen would appear illuminated, even to a human's logarithmic visual system.
I'd like to point at that at this point, all of your specific claims in this thread have been shown to be baseless.
No, actually, Verio doesn't. It's bound by the terms under which it (indirectly) acquired The Little Garden (tlg.net), which very clearly specified that there was to be no blocking of service on grounds of content.
Remember this, if you're ever tempted to business with Verio: It breaks its commitments. Accordingly, you can't believe a word it says.
Yes, TLG's contracts with its customers eventually became contracts between Verio and its new customers. However, the original contract, which you linked to, states that the terms can be changed with 60 days notice. I find it implausible that in that string of three buyouts, nobody sent the customers new terms of service. In any case, if that wasn't done, that is a technical problem that Verio can surely remedy.
You DO realize that there is a SIGNIFICANT different between a SAPLING and a 100 YEAR OLD tree right?
Yes, saplings absorb more carbon dioxide than 100-year-old trees. I found
this reference with Google to support that fact. See the third paragraph.
World view my ass, no trees in MY area means that _I_ can't breath.
I suppose that's why people regularly suffocate in the Sahara and Antarctica.
And quite frankly I don't GIVE A FUCK about some corporate 'sponsered' (read: EPA made them do it and/or they are making a profit out of it in the long run) program to replant trees. [Emphasis mine.]
Eh? So replanting trees is only good if the entity doing the replanting does not benefit? How does that work?
Er, I guess it's not totally off-topic. Sorry, I didn't actually read Katz's review, I just skimmed through the comments. But still, copying and pasting from an earlier post pretty much deserves to be modded down.
Slashdot Mirror
Rental Rates Today
w/ monitoring $100/day, midsize
no monitoring $975/day, subcompact
It's unlikely that monitoring would save the companies hundreds of dollars per day. Competition would prevent the difference in cost from being grossly disproportionate to the amount that monitoring would save.
I worked for a medium-sized IT consulting firm. When we moved into a larger office space, they saved money by making everyone in the office make patch cables. Office Admin., everybody. Glad I was billable :)
This is irrational. The cost, in terms of time spent by employees, must have been much higher than if the cable were mass produced. It sounds more like somebody saved money on a purchasing budget but lost the company money overall.
And middle income workers would only benefit later in their careers if the markets are doing reasonably well at that time. If their late careers are spent during a period like the 1970's or - heaven forbid - the great depression, they could be wiped out.
Of course, one could shift an increasing proportion of one's assets into safer investments the closer one gets to retirement.
The Social Security trust fund actually owns bonds, whose rate of return has outstripped that of the stock market over certain extended periods of time (for example, during most of the 1970's), especially when you account for inflation, brokerage fees, etc.
But the bonds in question don't earn money by being invested in anything. They're issued by the government to itself and it simply pays their interest out of general tax revenues. Clearly, the government can give itself bonds that earn any interest rate whatsoever; this does not impress me. Loaning itself money is functionally different from investing it in something. It simply amounts to an accounting gimmick to cause part of the cost of Social Security to show up under "interest payments on the national debt" or something like that.
You seem to be unfamiliar with mathematical proofs. Grinding through many cases does not a valid proof make. In order to prove a theorem, you have to verify its validity for ALL cases, and in order to disprove a theorem, you only have to find one case where it is not valid. Just because you ran your theorem on a supercomputer for three months does not mean you have proved its validity for all cases. Example: You are trying to prove some theorem, and you use only positive integers. The supercomputer runs for a year and finds no holes in your theorem. Then your girlfriend comes over and enters -1, and your supercomputer barfs at you.
You seem to be unfamiliar the concept of proof by cases. A proof by cases is valid if and only if the cases are exhaustive. For example, if you prove something for all even numbers and all odd numbers, you have proven it for all integers. The proof of the Four Color Theorem broke the problem, or some lemma used in the problem, into around 1000 cases. The cases were exhaustive, or it would not have been a proof. Some curmudgeons didn't like the fact that the cases were checked by computer.
As I've told some of the marketing droids so confident that they would "never" misuse information gathered by shopping cards, if they truly respected my concerns there would be a basket of shopper cards at the service counter and I could just grab one and walk away. They could collect all of the information they wanted about me... except who I am.
And how old you are, and what sex you are, etc. Also, how do you propose they get people to keep the cards in their wallet rather than throwing them away and grabbing a new one next time?
One cannot "solve" chess or any game requiring two or more participants for that matter.
Put another way, how does one solve "poker"?
Let's play a game requiring two participants, which is therefore unsolvable.
I have here three rows of coins:
OOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO
On each move, a player may take away as many coins as he wants from a single row, but only one row, and he must take at least one coin. The winner is the player who takes away the last coin. You go first.
To sum up my point, early on in the game there is no one move that will always lead to victory, regardless of the opponent's moves. Hence, the original idea of pre-calculating a decision tree for the entire game and then only picking moves that result in a win simply cannot work.
You can't possibly know that there is no such move early on in the game, unless you've pre-calculated the entire game of chess yourself. It seems likely that chess is a draw (that is, if both players pre-calculate the entire game, they will draw). However, no one knows for sure.
That's interesting, but I still say that the user is solely liable for his data. I don't fully trust third-party encryption because anyone could have a master key or a back door, no one knows for sure what interests all go into things like this. The only safe way is to use your own homemade ciphers, assuming that you're not a total idiot.
If you're smart enough to make your own ciphers, you're smart enough to examine others' ciphers and determine whether they're good or not. Furthermore, many people will have investigated the security of well-known ciphers, but that will not be true of ciphers you create yourself. There's no reason to make your own cipher.
And I quote...
The motor power required, some 300 watts, would impose a rather heavy loading on the computer's power supply, though.
I don't think I'd be comfortable with something spinning that quickly in my machine. If I tapped it accidentally, would it rip through the plastic and come flying out of my computer? Perhaps maiming bystanders? Hmmm...
The solution is provided in the article:
CD-ROM drives of the 64x CLV class and higher, should be provided with shrapnel protection of no less than 3 mm aluminium or 1 mm steel.
Money is fungible. If Amnesty pays for an ad out of their general funds, how do they decide whom to list as its contributor?
You're assuming that the bug was observable. What would you say if the bug had no observable effect and was reproduced in both bnetd's and battle.net?
If the bug has no observable effect, it isn't a bug.
That's the beautiful thing about a site that doesn't fund themselves through the use of banner ads. It doesn't MATTER if you access their content through the main website, an affiliate like yahoo, or an api interface.
They sells text ads on their main site. Yahoo pays them a fee. So how will the API users pay for themselves?
It has been often said that, in order to stop pirates, the recording industry could employ teams of virus programmers (they could afford them), to create uber-virii, which they could then distribute through file-sharing programs.
Why would one execute what one believes is an audio file?
At which point your users finally found a password that the system would allow them to use, and, bitter and pissed off, wrote it on a Post-It? note and stuck it to their monitor.
But that's no less secure than using "password" or "".
IBM has some pretty nice new security that allows for even the HDDs within laptops to be locked up, even when the HDDs are removed from the machine and put in another machine. Pretty nice for securing data, and would have been nice for the company to know that the data couldn't be accessed.
Please. If I stole a laptop for the purpose of corporate espionage, I think I would have the resources to swap the drive electronics, or, if all else fails, the platters. If you want to secure your data, encrypt it.
If your server is in a oversized closet opening into an inside room, then the odds of someone actually doing something with it from the outside is pretty slim.
Why would anyone want to know what's on the screen of a server in a closet? Getting a screen image is probably only useful if a human is sitting at and using a computer. Humans often try to get offices with windows.
Sorry but the premise just seems questionable given that computer screens usually have P22 phosphor, which has a decay of, or so I've heard, about 100 usecs for the blue and green, and up to 1000 usec for the red, yet this paper shows their test case shows a 90% decline (to 10%) in about 0.55 usecs.
Human vision is approximately logarithmic in its perception of intensity. A search with Google should confirm this if you don't believe me. Thus, the exponential drop in that graph is not an exponential drop in the perceived intensity. Furthermore, CRTs work because of persistence of vision. If a CRT were frozen in time, only a fraction of the screen would appear illuminated, even to a human's logarithmic visual system.
I'd like to point at that at this point, all of your specific claims in this thread have been shown to be baseless.
No, actually, Verio doesn't. It's bound by the terms under which it (indirectly) acquired The Little Garden (tlg.net), which very clearly specified that there was to be no blocking of service on grounds of content.
Remember this, if you're ever tempted to business with Verio: It breaks its commitments. Accordingly, you can't believe a word it says.
Yes, TLG's contracts with its customers eventually became contracts between Verio and its new customers. However, the original contract, which you linked to, states that the terms can be changed with 60 days notice. I find it implausible that in that string of three buyouts, nobody sent the customers new terms of service. In any case, if that wasn't done, that is a technical problem that Verio can surely remedy.
I'm not sure, but 10baseT actually changes state at a higher frequency than 10Mhz.
You're correct. Manchester encoding is used for all 10 Mbps Ethernets, so the state could change at a rate of up to 20 MHz.
As long as they can be fooled into thinking that Mr. Wizbang's new ROT-14 encryption scheme is uncrackable by all but the most devious of minds
What they need is my tredectuple ROT-14 encryption.
You DO realize that there is a SIGNIFICANT different between a SAPLING and a 100 YEAR OLD tree right?
Yes, saplings absorb more carbon dioxide than 100-year-old trees. I found this reference with Google to support that fact. See the third paragraph.
World view my ass, no trees in MY area means that _I_ can't breath.
I suppose that's why people regularly suffocate in the Sahara and Antarctica.
And quite frankly I don't GIVE A FUCK about some corporate 'sponsered' (read: EPA made them do it and/or they are making a profit out of it in the long run) program to replant trees. [Emphasis mine.]
Eh? So replanting trees is only good if the entity doing the replanting does not benefit? How does that work?
We have an elected legislature responsible for taxation and represention. We gave them (fought for) that right.
We did? I can't recall doing that.
Er, I guess it's not totally off-topic. Sorry, I didn't actually read Katz's review, I just skimmed through the comments. But still, copying and pasting from an earlier post pretty much deserves to be modded down.
At the very least, it's an off-topic duplicate of this. Posting something off-topic and likely to incite people is trolling.