Try storing the bottles/cans upright, if you can. This will reduce agitation since you won't have to flip them upright before serving. Also, if they are bottle-conditioned, you won't stir up the sediment as much.
I haven't looked at the mission plan, but the delay might be based on waiting for more a favorable relative position between Earth and the outer planets. Waiting 20 years to launch the mission might actually allow a spacecraft to arrive earlier than if it were launched now.
My rule of thumb is: come up with an estimate, double it, add 1, and move to the next highest unit of measure, e.g. 1 hour -> 3 days, 1 day -> 3 weeks.
My office has "strongly advised" everyone to work from home, and the subway and buses have been shut down since 7pm Sunday evening. Right now (8:30am Monday) we've got some small wind gusts and scattered rain.
Try to make it a place where it's okay to fail, and fail early. I don't mean encourage people to be idiots, I mean make sure it's okay to try, work hard, make a legitimate mistake, and everybody moves on without repercussions and hopefully there's some lessons learned.
There's always something to watch, but it might not be exactly what you're looking for.
I've got a mix of over-the-air, a Roku serving YouTube, and Netflix streaming, and the non-plus version of Hulu on my laptop. It's not bad, I'm entertained, but the selection isn't all that great and about half of the time I say "Oh, I think I'd like to watch $X" but I have to settle for $Y. I don't watch a whole lot of television to begin with, so it's not that big of a deal for me.
If you are a serious TV watcher (I'm not) and don't want to torrent (I don't), I would recommend at a minimum Hulu or Hulu Plus (I've never used the 'Plus' version), Netflix streaming and DVD service.
I saw a presentation by Jacob Appelbaum, where he addressed these kinds of speed concerns. He said (I hope I'm getting the quote right from memory) "we can make it faster, but you have to ask yourself: how fast do you want to die?"
And encrypting multiple time with the same key will, for any reasonably secure crypto system*, not increase security.
I understand that from a theoretical point of view, but from a practical point of view -- how would you break an encrypted file if it is doubly encrypted, even if you knew both algorithms involved. How do you solve the problem of recognizing if you'd actually decrypted with the first key, so that you can start working with the second key?? Haven't you increased the key-space to an exponent of itself (in practical terms), and therefore created something vastly more secure?
Multiply encrypting will only increase your security if there isn't some other key that you could have used that yields the same results. For example, if we use "E(M,K)" means "Encrypt message M with key K" then encrypting twice would be E(E(M,K1),K2). The problem is, if there is some OTHER key K3 such that E(M,K3) = E(E(M,K1),K2), then you really haven't added any security by doing that.
Obligatory disclaimer: everything I know about cryptography I learned from reading Bruce Schneier's books, and they're all in storage at the moment
Banks prefer a conservative approach, using tried and tested 18th century steam punk hardware.
No kidding. One of the many projects I have worked on over the years is some of the infrastructure for Continuously Linked Settlement, which automates a huge chunk of foreign currency exchange. Not too long after the "Go-Live" date, I needed to exchange a sizable chunk of money between Euros and dollars that required me to go in-person to my bank.
I was really looking forward to participating in the modern 21st century economy, and seeing the high-tech whiz-bang front end the bank had wrapped around our back-end... and I was very disappointed when the whole transaction boiled down to the bank guy filling out a form and putting it in stack of other forms.
Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment.
I don't think this is about punishment; this is about being "tough on crime", which is always good for getting votes.
Any politician who gets behind this will not get re-elected. When less than 10% of the population supports something, it is political suicide to try and hitch your wagon to it.
I think you're over-estimating the attention span of most voters.
When re-election time comes around, the message won't be "I supported a measure that only 10% of you were in favor of and my opponent was against it", it will be "I'm tough on internet crime and my opponent supports open access to child pornography". Most people will probably not remember the issues in detail, but will definitely hear the election-time rhetoric.
There will still be lost tapes, only the excuses will change; "our servers were offline during that period", "the hard drive got corrupted", "viruses", "microwave radiation interference", et cetera. I'm sure most supervisors can be trusted (and most officers, as well), but some are going to be tempted to erase evidence of wrong-doing, just as some officers in the field will be tempted to turn off the camera.
As long as we rely on the police to police themselves, there will always be possible ways to get around these kinds of things.
What we would really need is for those real-time video feeds to be open to the public
Your example is clear and easy to understand, but unfortunately you still need to read the code. You've done a great job of making sure your code matches your comments, but after 2 or 3 maintenance cycles involving code-monkeys, I think the odds are that the comments wouldn't get updated and would no longer match the code.
You always have to read the code. The really fun part is trying to figure out, when the original developer is long gone, if there's a bug in the code, the comments, or both.
It's hard to see how P2P techniques could make a phone call anonymous. If you're using any kind of a public switched phone network, once the call leaves the internet and enters a phone company, there will be call records, and you can't really hide who you are and who you are talking to.
For true anonymity, I think you'd have to steal a phone, or buy a pay-as-you-go phone with cash.
Now, if you avoided the public telephone network altogether, then it would start to get interesting... something like Skype, but open source so we can all see what's going on inside (I want to see the source; I'm not sure I believe the latest disinformation). The only real problem there is that you end up having to trust everybody; what if the Bad Guys start running one of these P2P applications? Unless their domain name ends in something like.nsa.gov, you might end up routing a call through them and not realizing it. You can encrypt end-to-end, but routing information can still be extracted even if the encryption itself isn't broken.
The problem isn't that they're listening to you calls (well, that is a problem, but we've done that one a few times already)
The problem is that they can tell where you are if you're using a mobile phone, even if you aren't using it. And if you are using and have some kind of whizz-bang encryption, they can still figure out who you're calling, because you can't encrypt the call setup (otherwise how would they know where to route the call?)
You hit the nail on the head with that question. I'm an Ameritrade customer, and I'm also a software developer for an extremely large financial services company, so this is an issue that really hits close to home. I know that no security system is perfect, but I can't believe that that it's even POSSIBLE that there could be "unauthorized code" running on their computers. The apparent lack of accountability and control over their systems is unbelievable. It also begs the question: "what ELSE is running on their computers that they don't know about?"
As far as catching the bad-guy hacker goes, I hope they get him, but I'm not so upset that my name, e-mail address and SSN might have been disclosed (I mean, I am upset, but it's pretty likely that somewhere, sometime in the past they've already been disclosed, and if not I'm sure that it will happen sometime soon). The real criminal activity here is going on at Ameritrade; I would much rather see the CIO, Head of Operations, Lord High Security Guru, or whoever else is responsible for system integrity there nailed to the wall over this one.
Now that I've vented a little steam, please excuse me while I search for another on-line brokerage...
Slashdot Mirror
Try storing the bottles/cans upright, if you can. This will reduce agitation since you won't have to flip them upright before serving. Also, if they are bottle-conditioned, you won't stir up the sediment as much.
I haven't looked at the mission plan, but the delay might be based on waiting for more a favorable relative position between Earth and the outer planets. Waiting 20 years to launch the mission might actually allow a spacecraft to arrive earlier than if it were launched now.
My rule of thumb is: come up with an estimate, double it, add 1, and move to the next highest unit of measure, e.g. 1 hour -> 3 days, 1 day -> 3 weeks.
My office has "strongly advised" everyone to work from home, and the subway and buses have been shut down since 7pm Sunday evening. Right now (8:30am Monday) we've got some small wind gusts and scattered rain.
Whoa, not so fast... there may be a way around that, see http://www.acsa-admin.org/2005/abstracts/47.html
But did you notice that gmail addresses are significantly more expensive?
Try to make it a place where it's okay to fail, and fail early. I don't mean encourage people to be idiots, I mean make sure it's okay to try, work hard, make a legitimate mistake, and everybody moves on without repercussions and hopefully there's some lessons learned.
I've got a mix of over-the-air, a Roku serving YouTube, and Netflix streaming, and the non-plus version of Hulu on my laptop. It's not bad, I'm entertained, but the selection isn't all that great and about half of the time I say "Oh, I think I'd like to watch $X" but I have to settle for $Y. I don't watch a whole lot of television to begin with, so it's not that big of a deal for me.
If you are a serious TV watcher (I'm not) and don't want to torrent (I don't), I would recommend at a minimum Hulu or Hulu Plus (I've never used the 'Plus' version), Netflix streaming and DVD service.
"It's worse somewhere else" doesn't excuse "It's bad here"
Actually, you can do a bit better than that; see Homomorphic Encryption, but I think it's still mostly in the proof of-concept phase
I saw a presentation by Jacob Appelbaum, where he addressed these kinds of speed concerns. He said (I hope I'm getting the quote right from memory) "we can make it faster, but you have to ask yourself: how fast do you want to die?"
And encrypting multiple time with the same key will, for any reasonably secure crypto system*, not increase security. I understand that from a theoretical point of view, but from a practical point of view -- how would you break an encrypted file if it is doubly encrypted, even if you knew both algorithms involved. How do you solve the problem of recognizing if you'd actually decrypted with the first key, so that you can start working with the second key?? Haven't you increased the key-space to an exponent of itself (in practical terms), and therefore created something vastly more secure?
Multiply encrypting will only increase your security if there isn't some other key that you could have used that yields the same results. For example, if we use "E(M,K)" means "Encrypt message M with key K" then encrypting twice would be E(E(M,K1),K2). The problem is, if there is some OTHER key K3 such that E(M,K3) = E(E(M,K1),K2), then you really haven't added any security by doing that.
Obligatory disclaimer: everything I know about cryptography I learned from reading Bruce Schneier's books, and they're all in storage at the moment
SSL was released in 1996
Banks prefer a conservative approach, using tried and tested 18th century steam punk hardware.
No kidding. One of the many projects I have worked on over the years is some of the infrastructure for Continuously Linked Settlement, which automates a huge chunk of foreign currency exchange. Not too long after the "Go-Live" date, I needed to exchange a sizable chunk of money between Euros and dollars that required me to go in-person to my bank.
I was really looking forward to participating in the modern 21st century economy, and seeing the high-tech whiz-bang front end the bank had wrapped around our back-end... and I was very disappointed when the whole transaction boiled down to the bank guy filling out a form and putting it in stack of other forms.
Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment.
I don't think this is about punishment; this is about being "tough on crime", which is always good for getting votes.
Any politician who gets behind this will not get re-elected. When less than 10% of the population supports something, it is political suicide to try and hitch your wagon to it.
I think you're over-estimating the attention span of most voters. When re-election time comes around, the message won't be "I supported a measure that only 10% of you were in favor of and my opponent was against it", it will be "I'm tough on internet crime and my opponent supports open access to child pornography". Most people will probably not remember the issues in detail, but will definitely hear the election-time rhetoric.
Where is the '-1, Whoosh' moderation button when you need it?
There will still be lost tapes, only the excuses will change; "our servers were offline during that period", "the hard drive got corrupted", "viruses", "microwave radiation interference", et cetera. I'm sure most supervisors can be trusted (and most officers, as well), but some are going to be tempted to erase evidence of wrong-doing, just as some officers in the field will be tempted to turn off the camera. As long as we rely on the police to police themselves, there will always be possible ways to get around these kinds of things. What we would really need is for those real-time video feeds to be open to the public
That would be Charo, not the US Navy
I have mod points, and after reading your sig, I find myself sorely tempted to mod you "Overrated", just to see what happens...
You always have to read the code. The really fun part is trying to figure out, when the original developer is long gone, if there's a bug in the code, the comments, or both.
For true anonymity, I think you'd have to steal a phone, or buy a pay-as-you-go phone with cash.
Now, if you avoided the public telephone network altogether, then it would start to get interesting... something like Skype, but open source so we can all see what's going on inside (I want to see the source; I'm not sure I believe the latest disinformation). The only real problem there is that you end up having to trust everybody; what if the Bad Guys start running one of these P2P applications? Unless their domain name ends in something like .nsa.gov, you might end up routing a call through them and not realizing it. You can encrypt end-to-end, but routing information can still be extracted even if the encryption itself isn't broken.
The problem is that they can tell where you are if you're using a mobile phone, even if you aren't using it. And if you are using and have some kind of whizz-bang encryption, they can still figure out who you're calling, because you can't encrypt the call setup (otherwise how would they know where to route the call?)
As far as catching the bad-guy hacker goes, I hope they get him, but I'm not so upset that my name, e-mail address and SSN might have been disclosed (I mean, I am upset, but it's pretty likely that somewhere, sometime in the past they've already been disclosed, and if not I'm sure that it will happen sometime soon). The real criminal activity here is going on at Ameritrade; I would much rather see the CIO, Head of Operations, Lord High Security Guru, or whoever else is responsible for system integrity there nailed to the wall over this one.
Now that I've vented a little steam, please excuse me while I search for another on-line brokerage...
Assuming they do the same thing, which declaration do you think is worse:
void removeFiel (const char *fileName);
or
void function25(void *a);
Wow, what a coincidence: I have the same combination on my luggage lock!