You should instead concentrate on being ultimately efficient in that 20%. That's the secret. Sometimes, bright ideas on how to achieve this come to you in the remaining 80% while you think you are not working...
Like it or not, you are only productive 20% of the time. It doesn't matter how your work pattern is. So even if you had a single-tasking UI and only kept your main task window open, you still couldn't reach more then 20%.
You should instead concentrate on being ultimately efficient in that 20%. That's the secret. Sometimes, bright ideas on how to achieve this come to you in the remaining 80% while you think you are not working...
I agree with TFS. I have about 1000 to 5000 hours of playing Crysis 1-2 behind my belt and the only video games I have ever spent more than 50 hours on in my life is Crysis and The Godfather, Godfather made it with about 200 hours playing time total until I got bored.
Crysis 3 sound great but I am trying to cut down on it;-)
Also, in my usage, to emasculate means removing or giving up masculine attributes while looking effeminate is just the nature of some men although it can also be accomplish through acting, dressing up and making up at will then, come back to a masculine look at will.
Effeminate is not a verb as far as I know, I wouldn't use as a verb. Emasculate is definitely a verb although it can be used as an adjective as many verbs can.
So: "Sergey Brin Says Using a Smartphone Is 'Effeminating'"
Doesn't make sense grammatically because "to effeminate" is not a verb.
For me, the cheapest way to go was to have the machine behind NAT automatically connect to a second server and bring up an IP tunnel through pppd-ssh.
The second server has a public IP and I connect to it when I want to access the machine behind NAT. You can also do port redirection on the public IP server so you can log directly into your home computer with the public IP.
My friend ISP does just that when he doesn't pay his bill, redirect anything to port 80 to their web server. Everything else, including DNS, https, mail, skype and what not continues to work normally.
Obviously you check file size too. Additionally, the intruder doesn't know which kind of checksum you use and nothing prevents you from using more than one checksum scheme. Damn it, just use rsync with incremental backups to detect changed files and use diff if you are really paranoid about collisions.
Easy analogy: In spy movies, they put a tiny piece of something between the door frame and the door when leaving. If not there when back, then you have an intruder.
I don't give a damn about how secure it is, I could even use crc-32 if the snapshot takes too long. The idea is only to be alerted about unexpected file changes, especially system executable like; top, login, w, etc. but you should look wider.
1) Take periodic checksums 2) Have differences reported 3) If they don't match documented updates you have an intruder.
That's why it is recommended to run the checksum program from a secluded host because the rootkit hopefully won't have had a chance to get at the checksum program on the secluded host. View that host as the ultimate secured host in a good rsync backup strategy, the CA in a good PKI strategy, etc...
It used to be common practice in the old days to take periodic checksums to detect intrusion into systems. Now, with all the fancy IDS solutions around, it seems to be less used but I do not see anything that really replaces it yet.
Encryption is the best anti-tampering mechanism you have in computing
Let me disagree; the best anti-tampering mechanism is checksums taken from preferably remote access to the file system from a highly protected host. md5sum and the like are your friend to find 0 day exploit root kits.
Note that this is line with what Rivest-Shamir-Alderman Adi Shamir is trying to warn us about.
The original Shermans were able to defeat the relatively small German tanks such as the Panzer III and IV they faced when first deployed in North Africa. Later, they found themselves more evenly matched against the newer up-gunned and up-armored Pz.Kpfw. IV medium tanks. Shermans were often outmatched by the 45 ton Panther tank and wholly inadequate against the 56 ton Tiger I and later 72 ton Tiger II heavy tanks, suffering high casualties against their heavier armor and more powerful 88 mm L/56 and L/71 cannons. Mobility, mechanical reliability and sheer numbers, supported by growing superiority in supporting fighter-bombers and artillery, helped offset these disadvantages strategically. The relative ease of production allowed huge numbers of the Sherman to be produced. This allowed many divisions, even many infantry divisions, their own organic Sherman assets. Some infantry divisions had more tanks than German panzer divisions did and this was a huge advantage for the Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
You should instead concentrate on being ultimately efficient in that 20%. That's the secret. Sometimes, bright ideas on how to achieve this come to you in the remaining 80% while you think you are not working...
I meant when visited by elves of course ;-)
Like it or not, you are only productive 20% of the time. It doesn't matter how your work pattern is. So even if you had a single-tasking UI and only kept your main task window open, you still couldn't reach more then 20%.
You should instead concentrate on being ultimately efficient in that 20%. That's the secret. Sometimes, bright ideas on how to achieve this come to you in the remaining 80% while you think you are not working...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Cray#Personal_life
That will teach those Canadian ministers not to step over a voodoo doll of our president ;-)
That single "incident" really made the scale tip over.
http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=35289
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Parrish
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/parrish-carolyn.html
There is nothing bad about it, learning is good and mistakes help.
Peace
I agree with TFS. I have about 1000 to 5000 hours of playing Crysis 1-2 behind my belt and the only video games I have ever spent more than 50 hours on in my life is Crysis and The Godfather, Godfather made it with about 200 hours playing time total until I got bored.
Crysis 3 sound great but I am trying to cut down on it ;-)
Also, in my usage, to emasculate means removing or giving up masculine attributes while looking effeminate is just the nature of some men although it can also be accomplish through acting, dressing up and making up at will then, come back to a masculine look at will.
So, different meanings really.
Effeminate is not a verb as far as I know, I wouldn't use as a verb. Emasculate is definitely a verb although it can be used as an adjective as many verbs can.
So: "Sergey Brin Says Using a Smartphone Is 'Effeminating'"
Doesn't make sense grammatically because "to effeminate" is not a verb.
my spelling corrector seems to agree with me...
For me, the cheapest way to go was to have the machine behind NAT automatically connect to a second server and bring up an IP tunnel through pppd-ssh.
The second server has a public IP and I connect to it when I want to access the machine behind NAT. You can also do port redirection on the public IP server so you can log directly into your home computer with the public IP.
My friend ISP does just that when he doesn't pay his bill, redirect anything to port 80 to their web server. Everything else, including DNS, https, mail, skype and what not continues to work normally.
They can redirect your DNS queries to their DNS if they want.
In truth, no DNS tampering is needed, all they need to do is redirect any request to port 80 on any IP to their web server.
They could easily redirect your requests to Google DNS to their DNS.
It comes from latin: emasculare
The literal meaning is: chopping the balls off a male.
Obviously you check file size too. Additionally, the intruder doesn't know which kind of checksum you use and nothing prevents you from using more than one checksum scheme. Damn it, just use rsync with incremental backups to detect changed files and use diff if you are really paranoid about collisions.
Damn, I meant to say: IT used to be
Also, same thing here. When something is detected that way, set honey pots to discover how they do it.
I used to be, I would be tempted to blame IDS fud and hype.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3497631&cid=43021047
You are the man, You got the full picture which I was trying express.
Easy analogy: In spy movies, they put a tiny piece of something between the door frame and the door when leaving. If not there when back, then you have an intruder.
Same basic principle.
I don't give a damn about how secure it is, I could even use crc-32 if the snapshot takes too long. The idea is only to be alerted about unexpected file changes, especially system executable like; top, login, w, etc. but you should look wider.
1) Take periodic checksums
2) Have differences reported
3) If they don't match documented updates you have an intruder.
That's why it is recommended to run the checksum program from a secluded host because the rootkit hopefully won't have had a chance to get at the checksum program on the secluded host. View that host as the ultimate secured host in a good rsync backup strategy, the CA in a good PKI strategy, etc...
It used to be common practice in the old days to take periodic checksums to detect intrusion into systems. Now, with all the fancy IDS solutions around, it seems to be less used but I do not see anything that really replaces it yet.
Holy shit , thanks for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Adleman
Encryption is the best anti-tampering mechanism you have in computing
Let me disagree; the best anti-tampering mechanism is checksums taken from preferably remote access to the file system from a highly protected host. md5sum and the like are your friend to find 0 day exploit root kits.
Note that this is line with what Rivest-Shamir-Alderman Adi Shamir is trying to warn us about.
He put the S in Rivest-Shamir-Alderman
"A small UK company is bringing new technology online that could reduce the prices of tantalum and titanium ten-fold."
Online... Will it make the tantalum and titanium down-loadable also?
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
The original Shermans were able to defeat the relatively small German tanks such as the Panzer III and IV they faced when first deployed in North Africa. Later, they found themselves more evenly matched against the newer up-gunned and up-armored Pz.Kpfw. IV medium tanks. Shermans were often outmatched by the 45 ton Panther tank and wholly inadequate against the 56 ton Tiger I and later 72 ton Tiger II heavy tanks, suffering high casualties against their heavier armor and more powerful 88 mm L/56 and L/71 cannons. Mobility, mechanical reliability and sheer numbers, supported by growing superiority in supporting fighter-bombers and artillery, helped offset these disadvantages strategically. The relative ease of production allowed huge numbers of the Sherman to be produced. This allowed many divisions, even many infantry divisions, their own organic Sherman assets. Some infantry divisions had more tanks than German panzer divisions did and this was a huge advantage for the Americans.
Yeap, I made a mistake I figured panzer==panther. I never watched Dr. Who either...
But then again, how can anybody get scared by something that looks as fragile as a panzer tank? I didn't even know they ever existed...