The commercial board provides considerably more than the "free" board, for approximately a correct ratio for the price. (Eight times as amany quadrature channels for eight times the price, since a quadrature channel on the GnuRadio requires the purchase of four daughterboards at $50 each.) More than that, the commercial board includes documentation, and is easier to reduce to a standard FPGA implementation for inclusion in hardware.
Actually, it is harder to carry a million keys around than one. There are two different kinds of hardware tokens: a SIM-based smartcard or a paired key generator. The first has very limited capacity, enough for only a few keys, and the second can't carry more than one key at a time.
I really hate to rain on Timothy's parade, but not only is this story a dupe, it's looking more and more like a hoax. Secunia, no fan of Microsoft, has not even been able to repro any of these on a fully patched SP1 system, much less on an SP2 system. In addition, I tried to repro the last of these on an SP2 system, and could not do so.
I was actually kind of surprised by the repeated allegations that SP2 was vulnerable to the last pair of attacks. I tried to run the exploits, and couldn't get them to open at all. Apparently, they're chinese help files, and I don't have a Simplified Chinese version of SP2 here.
Given that, I'm a little suspicious about the "issue".
Oh, yes, the famous "words to avoid" page. You might want to go read an even better discussion of those words; it was written by a guy named Eric Arthur Blair, and published back in 1948. It's got this cool appendix at the back, called The Principles of Newspeak.
Why is the parent a troll? I just reran the Python version of Zalewski's fuzz tester against the most recent Firebird last night, and find about one file in four hundred crashes the browser. At the usual ratio, about half of the fifty crashes I found during a twelve minute test will be exploitable.
Oh, and remember that fuzz test doesn't exercise the ECMAScript engine or significantly exercise the DOM, it just creates random "HTML-like" files. So it barely scratches the surface of likely defects.
That's a red herring, childling. You said that there are Americans available for a job, and I showed that there weren't. Nothing more is required.
(Oh, and to give you a sense of scale: starting employees here get three weeks payed vacation per year, plus many other non-working days, full medical (no copay for any meds, no premiums, etc.), generous dental (up to three periodontal procedures per year, for instance), and other beneifts as well. Salaries are above the 80th percentile in the industry nationwide.)
It may be good computationally, but it's actually bad from a human interface viewpoint.
The value in mmddyyyy is that the important data is most salient because month and year are far more informative than day-of-month. Thus, from a pure hci standard, displaying your favorite 32 bit time or 64 bit timestruct as mmddyyyy is a good idea, not a bad idea.
Yes -- but that has nothing to do with whether or not the work is protected. The "fair use" defence basically says "Yes, I affirm that I copied a protected work, but, in this limited case, it isn't illegal." See sections 107 through 122 of USC 17 for details.
I asked for citations. That means to primary sources, not error-laden screeds. The H-1Bigots at zazona.com don't make the grade. How do you expect me to be take seriously a page with gems like these?
In the year 2001,
9 out of every 10 new job openings for computer/IT were taken by H-1Bs, and despite record unemployment the INS issued 312,000 visas in 2002.
This is a lie in two ways: first, because the statistic he used is contrdicted on his own site, and, second, because he carefully ignores turn-over and refilling in his numbers.
H-1B is used to import workers for jobs that American employers claim can't be filled in the "tight American labor market". Their claim is a lie because there are more than enough Americans to fill these jobs.
I don't know about you, but my employer is never able to find enough people that meet our standards. We routinely have full-time headcount which stands open for years -- my group has a dev staff of about fifteen, with five open heads. Those heads have been open for two years, H-1B availability or not.
That situation is normal, not exceptional: among software developers, the number of people who think they can write code greatly exceeds the number of people that other people judge able to write code.
Uhh--it's a troll. A good one, at that; notice the subtle use of dollar signs to smear the good reputation of Microsnot, as well as the subtle assignment of blame to WinDOS for the coder's error.
You don't seem to understand. I don't think that anybody was guilty of (or, more importantly, liable for) anything in the posting case. I completely agree that had OSDN fought, it would have won.
That's irrelevant. The nature of the settlement established certain things as facts, which, in turn, established liability for OSDN and VA in other contexts. The parent of this thread (here) is a clear solicitation to illegal activity. I pointed out (here) that the attorneys for VA Software almost certainly didn't view that as a good thing.
If the editors exercised no control whatsoever over the content of the forums, that wouldn't matter, because they would be able to employ the common carrier defence. Unfortunately, their behavior during the scientology affair shows that this is a moderated forum, and thus that the editors don't have that defence. The facts of the scientology case itself are irrelevant; what the editors did in response is what matters -- and that, folks, is a matter of public record.
From a legal point of view, that doesn't matter. What matters is that the Slashdot editors exercised direct control of the content of the discussion. That, coupled with the "unlimited mod points" that the editors have puts them in a very different position than the bartender with a bulletin board. The barkeep just cleans the board periodically without regard to content. Slashdot's editors constantly monitor the content of the board for content. Bad news from a liability standpoint.
Slashdot caved; that doesn't mean that the Scientologists were on the right side of the law.
You're right, but that's even worse. There's no real question that the scientologists weren't on the right side of the law, and they won anyway. In giving them the victory, the editors showed that contrary to their disclaimer, they do exercise full editorial discretion over the content of the site. That makes them fully liable for any illegal solicitation which they allow to remain visible.
Sorry, no. Slashdot tried to fight the scientologists, and found out Real Fast (TM) just how far that disclaimer's protection actually extended. The answer is "not very, even for documents arguably in the public domain".
I doubt that slashdot's attorneys think at all well of you using their bandwidth for illegal solicitation. Do you think that VA Software wants to wind up in the legal crosshairs of the RIAA or the MPAA?
Well, technically, the employer doesn't hold any of the cards. An H1-B holder is not forbidden to apply for a residency visa. It's just that it's expensive and difficult to make that change successfully, and most people straight out of college can't afford it. As a result, employers usually wind up paying for the legal work required.
Slashdot Mirror
The commercial board provides considerably more than the "free" board, for approximately a correct ratio for the price. (Eight times as amany quadrature channels for eight times the price, since a quadrature channel on the GnuRadio requires the purchase of four daughterboards at $50 each.) More than that, the commercial board includes documentation, and is easier to reduce to a standard FPGA implementation for inclusion in hardware.
Where's the bargain, here?
It would be awfully nice if the editors marked erroneous stories as erronious, though, wouldn't it?
(For the lazy among you, Secunia can't ever repro these on a fully patch SP1 system, to say nothing of an SP2 system.)
Actually, it is harder to carry a million keys around than one. There are two different kinds of hardware tokens: a SIM-based smartcard or a paired key generator. The first has very limited capacity, enough for only a few keys, and the second can't carry more than one key at a time.
I really hate to rain on Timothy's parade, but not only is this story a dupe, it's looking more and more like a hoax. Secunia, no fan of Microsoft, has not even been able to repro any of these on a fully patched SP1 system, much less on an SP2 system. In addition, I tried to repro the last of these on an SP2 system, and could not do so.
We've seen this onebefore.
But last time, the submitter at least got the comments right.
By the time one reaches my age, one typically has a number of friends who were sober, but still becamse casualties of drunk drivers.
I was actually kind of surprised by the repeated allegations that SP2 was vulnerable to the last pair of attacks. I tried to run the exploits, and couldn't get them to open at all. Apparently, they're chinese help files, and I don't have a Simplified Chinese version of SP2 here.
Given that, I'm a little suspicious about the "issue".
The parent is so wrong it is sickening.
The fuzz tester wasn't written by a lab close to Microsoft.
It isn't a "tiny" area: Browsers read files that contain HTML. No matter what, corrupt files should not crash a browser.
The Linux kernel was rewritten after Mindcraft. There was a serious problem in the way signals were handled under high load.
Mozilla has fixed the three bugs that Zalewski's original posting described. There are still issues in Firefox 1.0 that the tool discloses.
Oh, yes, the famous "words to avoid" page. You might want to go read an even better discussion of those words; it was written by a guy named Eric Arthur Blair, and published back in 1948. It's got this cool appendix at the back, called The Principles of Newspeak.
Why is the parent a troll? I just reran the Python version of Zalewski's fuzz tester against the most recent Firebird last night, and find about one file in four hundred crashes the browser. At the usual ratio, about half of the fifty crashes I found during a twelve minute test will be exploitable.
Oh, and remember that fuzz test doesn't exercise the ECMAScript engine or significantly exercise the DOM, it just creates random "HTML-like" files. So it barely scratches the surface of likely defects.
That's a red herring, childling. You said that there are Americans available for a job, and I showed that there weren't. Nothing more is required.
(Oh, and to give you a sense of scale: starting employees here get three weeks payed vacation per year, plus many other non-working days, full medical (no copay for any meds, no premiums, etc.), generous dental (up to three periodontal procedures per year, for instance), and other beneifts as well. Salaries are above the 80th percentile in the industry nationwide.)
It may be good computationally, but it's actually bad from a human interface viewpoint.
The value in mmddyyyy is that the important data is most salient because month and year are far more informative than day-of-month. Thus, from a pure hci standard, displaying your favorite 32 bit time or 64 bit timestruct as mmddyyyy is a good idea, not a bad idea.
Yes -- but that has nothing to do with whether or not the work is protected. The "fair use" defence basically says "Yes, I affirm that I copied a protected work, but, in this limited case, it isn't illegal." See sections 107 through 122 of USC 17 for details.
This is a lie in two ways: first, because the statistic he used is contrdicted on his own site, and, second, because he carefully ignores turn-over and refilling in his numbers.
I don't know about you, but my employer is never able to find enough people that meet our standards. We routinely have full-time headcount which stands open for years -- my group has a dev staff of about fifteen, with five open heads. Those heads have been open for two years, H-1B availability or not.
That situation is normal, not exceptional: among software developers, the number of people who think they can write code greatly exceeds the number of people that other people judge able to write code.
Uhh--it's a troll. A good one, at that; notice the subtle use of dollar signs to smear the good reputation of Microsnot, as well as the subtle assignment of blame to WinDOS for the coder's error.
You don't seem to understand. I don't think that anybody was guilty of (or, more importantly, liable for) anything in the posting case. I completely agree that had OSDN fought, it would have won.
That's irrelevant. The nature of the settlement established certain things as facts, which, in turn, established liability for OSDN and VA in other contexts. The parent of this thread (here) is a clear solicitation to illegal activity. I pointed out (here) that the attorneys for VA Software almost certainly didn't view that as a good thing.
If the editors exercised no control whatsoever over the content of the forums, that wouldn't matter, because they would be able to employ the common carrier defence. Unfortunately, their behavior during the scientology affair shows that this is a moderated forum, and thus that the editors don't have that defence. The facts of the scientology case itself are irrelevant; what the editors did in response is what matters -- and that, folks, is a matter of public record.
From a legal point of view, that doesn't matter. What matters is that the Slashdot editors exercised direct control of the content of the discussion. That, coupled with the "unlimited mod points" that the editors have puts them in a very different position than the bartender with a bulletin board. The barkeep just cleans the board periodically without regard to content. Slashdot's editors constantly monitor the content of the board for content. Bad news from a liability standpoint.
Sorry, no. Slashdot tried to fight the scientologists, and found out Real Fast (TM) just how far that disclaimer's protection actually extended. The answer is "not very, even for documents arguably in the public domain".
I doubt that slashdot's attorneys think at all well of you using their bandwidth for illegal solicitation. Do you think that VA Software wants to wind up in the legal crosshairs of the RIAA or the MPAA?
Well, technically, the employer doesn't hold any of the cards. An H1-B holder is not forbidden to apply for a residency visa. It's just that it's expensive and difficult to make that change successfully, and most people straight out of college can't afford it. As a result, employers usually wind up paying for the legal work required.
Yes and no. H1-B can be converted to L1-A. It just takes effort on the part of the employer.