Might be feeding the toll but,
Yup, randomly, anonymously taking your anger out on uninvolved bystanders is definitely the way to correct the system. I guess it never occurred to you that you are doing the same thing that put you in your little temper tantrum to begin with. Let's hope the people you target are more mature than you.
No he didn't. Had you finished the article you might have seen these lines:
But all of today's computers are universal computing machines, which means that they can solve any problem involving logic and maths. So if a processor's internal instructions can't operate on large enough integers or on floating point numbers with sufficient precision, it's always possible for the programmer to implement arithmetic routines that will.
So computers might suck at maths, but there's always a solution available to circumvent their inherent weaknesses. And in that case, it's probably more accurate to say that computer programmers suck at maths – or at least some of them do.
let me clarify: since a given tor node is not just handling its own demands, but is also relaying other nodes' traffic, other people are routing through you (that's a down and up for each request you relay), such that on average Tor is going to multiply the total bandwidth used. Take an example, if you relay an average of 1 request for each one that you make (assuming that on average all requests are of equal size) you will be using about 3x the bandwidth you would need if you weren't a Tor node (the down for your request, the fetch for the relayed request, and resending the relayed request). For Tor to remain sustainable I assume that the network needs each node to relay about 2 or 3 x as many requests as it makes, so this means that the single relay would need to be a 2 or 3 (unless you are leaching) so the factor goes up to something like 5 or 7.
I'm sure cell companies will be thrilled to hear this, with Tor and other onion routing systems using several times the bandwidth of a typical direct connection.
As funny as I found your comment, as a serious note it's a bit too simplistic. Ultimately the one weak link in security that is always present is the user. So you have to either hamper the user, and progressively cripple his ability to use the computer or you have to educate him of who to trust and who not to. Any power you give the user is a power he can ultimately be tricked into misusing.
if you're fired and you can show that you were fired because you didn't do this, you can likely sue for damages and win
That's it. And as you said, the letter that is now public was
clearly written as a suggestion, not a demand
I'm not saying that ATT intends to follow up on this, but any half-intelligent manager who intends to use his power as a stick to influence his employees' voting is going to be discreet in his threats and make sure there is no proof that his policy for firing and promoting was based on employees' heeding his political "suggestions".
I've been told that was between Winston Churchill and Lady Aster. They had some good ones:
"Winston, if you were my husband I'd poison your tea."
"Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."
Using a less targeted platform is not security through obscurity, at least not in the conventional sense of the term.
This is a nice definition:
Security Through Obscurity (STO) is the belief that a system of any sort can be secure so long as nobody outside of its implementation group is allowed to find out anything about its internal mechanisms. Hiding account passwords in binary files or scripts with the presumption that "nobody will ever find it" is a prime case of STO.
For shits and grins here is a slashdot feature on the topic; the first couple of paragraphs should make the usage clear. In fact he even goes on to point out that it can not be used by opensource software.
Yeah, but it's phoronix, they do that shit consistently. For example here: Benchmark of OSX and Ubuntu, using compilation of PHP and ImageMagick, but with different versions of GCC. Honestly, all they do is vomit random statistics onto ad laden pages, and we slashdotters keep taking the bait, hoping somewhere in the noise there will be a couple meaningful numbers.
It is supply and demand. Over the last 50 or so years the perceived importance of a 4-year degree has been growing rapidly. Now there is a fairly pervasive view in middle-class America that if you don't have a degree (never mind what you want to do with your life) you are a failure.
This leads increasing numbers of HS graduates to a get-a-degree-at-all-costs mentality. Combined with an increased access to huge lines of credit for college (as well as gov't subsidized work study and so forth), this leads to a situation where there is a long line of frantic 18 year olds waving fistfuls of thousand-dollar bills at universities and offering to sign over their souls if necessary (regardless of whether they have any particular need for it).
This all leads to lots of young people saddling themselves with huge amounts of debt and an ever increasing cost of college.
For example, it's pretty hard to be aware of the situation of AIDS in Africa without being either a complete religious moron, or being appalled at the Pope telling people that condoms are not the answer. There really isn't a middle ground there.
A couple years back I was involved with some people doing digitization and at the time there were basically two options:
a) unbind the book and just feed it through an automatic scanner. This is fast but not good if you are dealing with old, rare books.
b)use a special table that is shaped like a V: you put the spine in the bottom of the V, and open to the first page, then a piece of plexiglass (also shapped like a V) drops down and holds the pages flat while two cameras each snap an image of each page. The plexiglass goes up, you flip the page, it drops . . . It took longer but I understand if you have cheap labour it is quite feasable, and can go surprisingly fast. I know big libraries are involved in Google's digitization, so I wonder whether the libraries are using student workers to do this sort of work.
I know! Why don't people get that frames/iframes/flash-pages/JS-manipulaiton-of-content/whatever-shiny-interactive-tech is not user-friendly if it breaks the URL->content correlation. The user (understandably) expects that coming back to the current address will show the current content (or an updated version thereof).
sic = 'thus' in the sense of "in this/that way"
[sic] = "I meant to write it as it appears; it's not a typo."
Interestingly 'sic' would commonly be used in Latin to answer a question affirmatively (i.e., to say 'yes'), meaning just "in that way" or "[it is] as you said". Thus the form 'si' that is found in Romance languages.
The worst thing the developers did (besides the name) was create a "steep learning curve" for the common web browser.
Except this fits into the whole unix philosophy bit: unix tools tend to have a steep learning curve but be extremely easy and fast to use once you know a certain number of arbitrary assignments. I know "steep learning curve" isn't part of the philosophy, it just tends to be part of how things play out. Examples: vi, sed, hell even the switches for something like ls.
Since almost all webpages are designed to be tall, reducing the amount of vertical space to display them is stupid.
You have this backwards: Because the convention is that webpages are tall, people expect to have to scroll vertically, not horizontally. Vertically reducing the a area of a page that can be viewed at a time is not a big deal (people already expect to scroll down), reducing the horizontal area that can be viewed at a time can be a very big deal (especially with statically laid out pages or dynamically laid out pages with numerous columns).
Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, or maybe you missed the meaning of mine, but I don't think that is relevant to my point. I was replying to someone claiming that this isn't news and has no purpose other than to bash MS.
My point is that it is news. I think most informed people will agree that competition in web browsers is good. One of the major things that will bring about more competition in web browsers is OEM's preinstalling non-IE browsers. As far as I can recall this hasn't happened in a long time (at least not with any major vendor). So that this is happening is certainly interesting news for people interested in browsers and the adoption of web standards.
Just because one aspect of a news story is a common event doesn't mean that the whole even isn't news. Shit, when JFK was assassinated someone using this sort of logic could have said, "a guy got shot, happens all the time, why's this in the papers?"
BTW, this is to say nothing of the dumbasses who leave the keys in the car while they run into the store and the like. As they say, you can't cure stupid.
Re:Most SHOULD NOT think about security...
on
The Myths of Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, but with the car you still have trust issues. As in, when I give my keys to the valet, I have to trust that he actually works for the hotel and isn't just going to go for a joyride when I step in the door. Or when I give my keys to a friend I have to trust that he has good judgment and at least basic driving skills. Many of the run-of-the-mill infections are based as much on misplaced trust ("I wanna see dancing bunnies") as they are on weaknesses in the system itself. And trust isn't something a computer can judge (although systems can reduce the number of times we need to trust, e.g., by using the principle of least privilege, centralized software distributions, etc). At the end of the day you will always have to choose between severely limiting what the user is able to do and opening the door to social engineering and user error.
Yeah, Didn't rtfa but I can almost guarantee there was more to it than just the email. Especially since it is not uncommon that the reason given for firing someone is little more than a pretext. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other less easily described difficulties in the relationship, and this just happened to be a the one objective thing she did that could be construed as obnoxious, and the employer took it as a chance to move her on.
Slashdot Mirror
Might be feeding the toll but,
Yup, randomly, anonymously taking your anger out on uninvolved bystanders is definitely the way to correct the system.
I guess it never occurred to you that you are doing the same thing that put you in your little temper tantrum to begin with.
Let's hope the people you target are more mature than you.
But all of today's computers are universal computing machines, which means that they can solve any problem involving logic and maths.
So if a processor's internal instructions can't operate on large enough integers or on floating point numbers with sufficient precision, it's always possible for the programmer to implement arithmetic routines that will.
So computers might suck at maths, but there's always a solution available to circumvent their inherent weaknesses. And in that case, it's probably more accurate to say that computer programmers suck at maths – or at least some of them do.
Remastersys is close.
However, last time I used it the compression takes a long time, so you might lose some of the dramatic effect.
Thanks for the correction. I assumed (I know, I know) it was considered impolite not to run as a relay.
let me clarify: since a given tor node is not just handling its own demands, but is also relaying other nodes' traffic, other people are routing through you (that's a down and up for each request you relay), such that on average Tor is going to multiply the total bandwidth used.
Take an example, if you relay an average of 1 request for each one that you make (assuming that on average all requests are of equal size) you will be using about 3x the bandwidth you would need if you weren't a Tor node (the down for your request, the fetch for the relayed request, and resending the relayed request).
For Tor to remain sustainable I assume that the network needs each node to relay about 2 or 3 x as many requests as it makes, so this means that the single relay would need to be a 2 or 3 (unless you are leaching) so the factor goes up to something like 5 or 7.
I'm sure cell companies will be thrilled to hear this, with Tor and other onion routing systems using several times the bandwidth of a typical direct connection.
As funny as I found your comment, as a serious note it's a bit too simplistic.
Ultimately the one weak link in security that is always present is the user. So you have to either hamper the user, and progressively cripple his ability to use the computer or you have to educate him of who to trust and who not to.
Any power you give the user is a power he can ultimately be tricked into misusing.
if you're fired and you can show that you were fired because you didn't do this, you can likely sue for damages and win
That's it. And as you said, the letter that is now public was
clearly written as a suggestion, not a demand
I'm not saying that ATT intends to follow up on this, but any half-intelligent manager who intends to use his power as a stick to influence his employees' voting is going to be discreet in his threats and make sure there is no proof that his policy for firing and promoting was based on employees' heeding his political "suggestions".
I've been told that was between Winston Churchill and Lady Aster. They had some good ones:
"Winston, if you were my husband I'd poison your tea."
"Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."
This is a nice definition:
Security Through Obscurity (STO) is the belief that a system of any sort can be secure so long as nobody outside of its implementation group is allowed to find out anything about its internal mechanisms. Hiding account passwords in binary files or scripts with the presumption that "nobody will ever find it" is a prime case of STO.
For shits and grins here is a slashdot feature on the topic; the first couple of paragraphs should make the usage clear. In fact he even goes on to point out that it can not be used by opensource software.
Yeah, but it's phoronix, they do that shit consistently. For example here: Benchmark of OSX and Ubuntu, using compilation of PHP and ImageMagick, but with different versions of GCC.
Honestly, all they do is vomit random statistics onto ad laden pages, and we slashdotters keep taking the bait, hoping somewhere in the noise there will be a couple meaningful numbers.
It is supply and demand. Over the last 50 or so years the perceived importance of a 4-year degree has been growing rapidly. Now there is a fairly pervasive view in middle-class America that if you don't have a degree (never mind what you want to do with your life) you are a failure.
This leads increasing numbers of HS graduates to a get-a-degree-at-all-costs mentality. Combined with an increased access to huge lines of credit for college (as well as gov't subsidized work study and so forth), this leads to a situation where there is a long line of frantic 18 year olds waving fistfuls of thousand-dollar bills at universities and offering to sign over their souls if necessary (regardless of whether they have any particular need for it).
This all leads to lots of young people saddling themselves with huge amounts of debt and an ever increasing cost of college.
For example, it's pretty hard to be aware of the situation of AIDS in Africa without being either a complete religious moron, or being appalled at the Pope telling people that condoms are not the answer. There really isn't a middle ground there.
Right, no middle ground at all.
How has this not been modded up? Thanks for making my week.
A couple years back I was involved with some people doing digitization and at the time there were basically two options:
a) unbind the book and just feed it through an automatic scanner. This is fast but not good if you are dealing with old, rare books.
b)use a special table that is shaped like a V: you put the spine in the bottom of the V, and open to the first page, then a piece of plexiglass (also shapped like a V) drops down and holds the pages flat while two cameras each snap an image of each page. The plexiglass goes up, you flip the page, it drops . . . It took longer but I understand if you have cheap labour it is quite feasable, and can go surprisingly fast.
I know big libraries are involved in Google's digitization, so I wonder whether the libraries are using student workers to do this sort of work.
I know! Why don't people get that frames/iframes/flash-pages/JS-manipulaiton-of-content/whatever-shiny-interactive-tech is not user-friendly if it breaks the URL->content correlation. The user (understandably) expects that coming back to the current address will show the current content (or an updated version thereof).
Is it not possible that he was talking about running vim on the server through an ssh login? At least that's what I understood him to say.
sic = 'thus' in the sense of "in this/that way"
[sic] = "I meant to write it as it appears; it's not a typo."
Interestingly 'sic' would commonly be used in Latin to answer a question affirmatively (i.e., to say 'yes'), meaning just "in that way" or "[it is] as you said". Thus the form 'si' that is found in Romance languages.
The worst thing the developers did (besides the name) was create a "steep learning curve" for the common web browser.
Except this fits into the whole unix philosophy bit: unix tools tend to have a steep learning curve but be extremely easy and fast to use once you know a certain number of arbitrary assignments. I know "steep learning curve" isn't part of the philosophy, it just tends to be part of how things play out. Examples: vi, sed, hell even the switches for something like ls.
Since almost all webpages are designed to be tall, reducing the amount of vertical space to display them is stupid.
You have this backwards: Because the convention is that webpages are tall, people expect to have to scroll vertically, not horizontally. Vertically reducing the a area of a page that can be viewed at a time is not a big deal (people already expect to scroll down), reducing the horizontal area that can be viewed at a time can be a very big deal (especially with statically laid out pages or dynamically laid out pages with numerous columns).
Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, or maybe you missed the meaning of mine, but I don't think that is relevant to my point. I was replying to someone claiming that this isn't news and has no purpose other than to bash MS.
My point is that it is news. I think most informed people will agree that competition in web browsers is good. One of the major things that will bring about more competition in web browsers is OEM's preinstalling non-IE browsers. As far as I can recall this hasn't happened in a long time (at least not with any major vendor). So that this is happening is certainly interesting news for people interested in browsers and the adoption of web standards.
Just because one aspect of a news story is a common event doesn't mean that the whole even isn't news. Shit, when JFK was assassinated someone using this sort of logic could have said, "a guy got shot, happens all the time, why's this in the papers?"
Um. But when was the last time a (PC) OEM included a browser other than IE?
BTW, this is to say nothing of the dumbasses who leave the keys in the car while they run into the store and the like. As they say, you can't cure stupid.
Yes, but with the car you still have trust issues. As in, when I give my keys to the valet, I have to trust that he actually works for the hotel and isn't just going to go for a joyride when I step in the door. Or when I give my keys to a friend I have to trust that he has good judgment and at least basic driving skills.
Many of the run-of-the-mill infections are based as much on misplaced trust ("I wanna see dancing bunnies") as they are on weaknesses in the system itself. And trust isn't something a computer can judge (although systems can reduce the number of times we need to trust, e.g., by using the principle of least privilege, centralized software distributions, etc). At the end of the day you will always have to choose between severely limiting what the user is able to do and opening the door to social engineering and user error.
Yeah, Didn't rtfa but I can almost guarantee there was more to it than just the email. Especially since it is not uncommon that the reason given for firing someone is little more than a pretext. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other less easily described difficulties in the relationship, and this just happened to be a the one objective thing she did that could be construed as obnoxious, and the employer took it as a chance to move her on.