Fluke is common here too. They're generally recognizable without seeing the logo: they're basically all yellow and dark grey.
And brand name actually does matter - it's an indicator of expected quality, both in terms of performance and safety. Fluke are known to make good meters with clear displays, quick display update, good continuity test response, and that won't fail spectacularly. They're not the only people with a good reputation, of course; Amprobe are also good (recognizable by basically all being red and dark grey). The fact that Fluke and Amprobe are both part of the same group may have something to do with that (Tektronix and Keithley are also part of the group).
I believe part of the point of SELinux is that it approaches the problem from a direction of explicit permission rather than implicit. You explicitly have to say a program can do something, rather than the program just doing it because that's what it defaults to.
Also the people are responsible for installing/configuring the system and the people responsible for installing/configuring the software that runs on the system aren't always the same.
Probably. And I honestly don't give a shit if they do. The only thing I browse at work are work related sites. The only thing I care about is when the stupid firewall blocks me from getting to a site which I'm only trying to access for work reasons. Still, that does at least let me send sarcastic e-mails to IT.
In Britain we're surprised to learn we have a Secret Service. We have GCHQ, MI5, MI6, and various other things, but I don't think we have a Secret Service.
I don't think Carmack was ever interested in games. He was interested in writing game engines. The games were kind of secondary demonstrations of what the engines could do.
Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.
You appear to be confusing GCHQ with the Home Office. I very much doubt the instructions for this little bit of theatre came out of GCHQ; it pretty obviously political theatre.
Yes he would, because his job and vetting level allowed him unsupervised access to materials at that level of protection. The flaw in their system was either their vetting - I have no idea if there was anything in Snowden's past that should have given them a reason to consider him unreliable - or that his access was unsupervised.
The problem with requiring supervised access to materials or infrastructure you (potentially) routinely access as part of your job is you've just doubled (at least) the number of people you need to do anything. Basically any system of security is going to require that at some point you have to trust people, otherwise the entire system becomes an unworkable nightmare and no-one can get anything done.
There are very rarely armed military personnel at UK airports. Them being there is highly unusual and worthy of comment. The uniformed armed people you usually see at UK airports are regular armed police. Although that itself is unusual in a national context (though not at airports); our police aren't routinely armed (it's in fact a specialization you have to qualify for).
I suspect The Guardian was mostly thinking "Sure, we'll play along with your little pantomime. It's not like it's actually going to make any difference." I suspect the technicians from GCHQ were thinking the same as well. Possibly with a side thought of "Well, it gets us out of Cheltenham for a day at least".
It shuts things down here when it hits areas that haven't had snow for years; they no-longer have the infrastructure in place to deal with it for exactly the same reason Atlanta doesn't - it doesn't make economic sense to have the equipment sat around most of the time doing nothing. Essex contracts out all of its gritting and clearing; they got caught on the hop one year but has since started pre-gritting when there's a possibility of snow or ice (now if they'd just fix all fucking pot holes).
Some people are just ridiculously risk averse though. When we had snow in the South East last year (uh, I think it was last year) I was living up in Cambridge and I still travelled down to the office in London by train; people who lived in London were staying home. HR sent a company wide warning because of that (i.e. "don't do that again").
Typing on a Sun Type 5 always screwed me up when I'd been using a PC keyboard for a while; my fingers were all out of place because of the row of keys on the left hand side.
Some of us.NET developers started off as C developers; we're only working in C# now because that's what people want. I'm honestly completely fed up of the entire software development profession now; I just want to change careers. Maybe in a few years I can go back to writing software as something I do for enjoyment again.
Amateur simply means "doesn't do it for a living", not "doesn't have as much skill". An amateur can be possessed of as much if not more skill than a professional. The reverse is also possible, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Fluke is common here too. They're generally recognizable without seeing the logo: they're basically all yellow and dark grey.
And brand name actually does matter - it's an indicator of expected quality, both in terms of performance and safety. Fluke are known to make good meters with clear displays, quick display update, good continuity test response, and that won't fail spectacularly. They're not the only people with a good reputation, of course; Amprobe are also good (recognizable by basically all being red and dark grey). The fact that Fluke and Amprobe are both part of the same group may have something to do with that (Tektronix and Keithley are also part of the group).
All the ones in my home town shut down. The last one went when the woman who owned it died; no-one wanted to take over running it.
I believe part of the point of SELinux is that it approaches the problem from a direction of explicit permission rather than implicit. You explicitly have to say a program can do something, rather than the program just doing it because that's what it defaults to.
Also the people are responsible for installing/configuring the system and the people responsible for installing/configuring the software that runs on the system aren't always the same.
Microsoft pretty much always try and go for compatibility. Users get pissy when stuff suddenly stops working.
Not at nine o'clock at night, no.
Probably. And I honestly don't give a shit if they do. The only thing I browse at work are work related sites. The only thing I care about is when the stupid firewall blocks me from getting to a site which I'm only trying to access for work reasons. Still, that does at least let me send sarcastic e-mails to IT.
Technically that's SIS, the Secret Intelligence Service. Also known as MI6.
In Britain we're surprised to learn we have a Secret Service. We have GCHQ, MI5, MI6, and various other things, but I don't think we have a Secret Service.
It just forwards all the e-mails to your @facebook.com address to your reigstered address now.
Why would you store the secret on your hard drive? Why wouldn't you use something like an eToken or any other PKI token?
Given you login to Amazon using your e-mail address...
I don't think Carmack was ever interested in games. He was interested in writing game engines. The games were kind of secondary demonstrations of what the engines could do.
Or more likely Doom; assuming we're discounting the pseudo-3D engines which used ray casting - although Id weren't the first to use those, afaicr.
Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.
You appear to be confusing GCHQ with the Home Office. I very much doubt the instructions for this little bit of theatre came out of GCHQ; it pretty obviously political theatre.
A point the editor even made to the Select Committee. In fact he straight out told them it had been copied elsewhere.
Yes he would, because his job and vetting level allowed him unsupervised access to materials at that level of protection. The flaw in their system was either their vetting - I have no idea if there was anything in Snowden's past that should have given them a reason to consider him unreliable - or that his access was unsupervised.
The problem with requiring supervised access to materials or infrastructure you (potentially) routinely access as part of your job is you've just doubled (at least) the number of people you need to do anything. Basically any system of security is going to require that at some point you have to trust people, otherwise the entire system becomes an unworkable nightmare and no-one can get anything done.
There are very rarely armed military personnel at UK airports. Them being there is highly unusual and worthy of comment. The uniformed armed people you usually see at UK airports are regular armed police. Although that itself is unusual in a national context (though not at airports); our police aren't routinely armed (it's in fact a specialization you have to qualify for).
I suspect The Guardian was mostly thinking "Sure, we'll play along with your little pantomime. It's not like it's actually going to make any difference." I suspect the technicians from GCHQ were thinking the same as well. Possibly with a side thought of "Well, it gets us out of Cheltenham for a day at least".
It shuts things down here when it hits areas that haven't had snow for years; they no-longer have the infrastructure in place to deal with it for exactly the same reason Atlanta doesn't - it doesn't make economic sense to have the equipment sat around most of the time doing nothing. Essex contracts out all of its gritting and clearing; they got caught on the hop one year but has since started pre-gritting when there's a possibility of snow or ice (now if they'd just fix all fucking pot holes).
Some people are just ridiculously risk averse though. When we had snow in the South East last year (uh, I think it was last year) I was living up in Cambridge and I still travelled down to the office in London by train; people who lived in London were staying home. HR sent a company wide warning because of that (i.e. "don't do that again").
Typing on a Sun Type 5 always screwed me up when I'd been using a PC keyboard for a while; my fingers were all out of place because of the row of keys on the left hand side.
And American, I suspect. I didn't get the reference; I don't think I ever saw a Bloom County comic in the UK when I was growing up.
One backed by VCs who see "Google Engineer" and think it's probably worth it?
Some of us .NET developers started off as C developers; we're only working in C# now because that's what people want. I'm honestly completely fed up of the entire software development profession now; I just want to change careers. Maybe in a few years I can go back to writing software as something I do for enjoyment again.
Amateur simply means "doesn't do it for a living", not "doesn't have as much skill". An amateur can be possessed of as much if not more skill than a professional. The reverse is also possible, of course.