"In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. "A statistically significant difference" simply means there is statistical evidence that there is a difference; it does not mean the difference is necessarily large, important, or significant in the common meaning of the word....
The significance level is usually represented by the Greek symbol, (alpha). Popular levels of significance are 5%, 1% and 0.1%. If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than the -level, the null hypothesis is rejected...."
Bandwidth and interference/reliability are good enough reasons for me not to use WIFI when I don't have to.
But, just because "security" is not (or weakly) configured out of the box, and a lot of users don't bother to read and learn how to configure their wifi device, why should security be a one of those reason (assuming WPA and higher) not to use wifi? Is there a new flaw with WPA (and higher? Yes I know about the TKIP weakness.
"In the office environment, 52% of respondents left their machines on for remote access, and 35% did so to support applications
running in the background, of which e-mail and IM were most popular (47%)."
Never mind the fact that emails are saved on the server, but is this device is really necessary in case "An instant messenger (IM) client will require the PC to be on in order for the user to stay "online" (reachable) to their contacts."
So instead of telling a significant number of respondents that they really don't have to leave their computer ON to run background applications such as IM and email (unless of course you are running an IM/email server at work or home), the author does a cartwheel while holding a sermon on how to be green.
Now that everybody has get some green in order to be green, something similar but different, here is a bare-bone OS running on a daughter card (PCIe) which allows secure access to the host's hardware even when the host is OFF but the motherboard still has power. http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/software/smdrac3/drac5/OM53/en/ug/racugc1.htm#31825. Works with Dell. A must if you don't have unrestricted physical access to your servers, and every once in a while the main power cycles but your servers don't boot/reboot automatically.
Small correction to the main article, a couple of the authors are from University of California, San Diego and not University of San Diego.
File Transfer Protocol has been around since the early 1970s, and while most servers/clients FTP implementations have a history of exploits, their weakness is due not necessarily because of the exploits but rather because of the way the FTP protocol transfers information. FTP communication includes not only the transfer of files but also the transfer of authentication parameters. All this information is transferred in clear text. Clear text is also the way http transfer information/files. You can think of http as an ftp with anonymous authentication (no authentication required) Clear text transmission only became a major problem when the Internet spread like a virus, and the network could not be trusted from prying eyes.
As a result, secure File Transfer Protocols have been developed, which is nothing more than a transfer protocol (ftp, http, telnet) on top of an encrypted/secure layer. HTTPs, SSH, SFTP, FTP over HTTPS are such protocols, which are used every time security information has to be exchanged securely.
So in conclusion,file/information transferring is performed every time you click a link, not only when you want to upload/download a file. If the contents of the file/information does not need to be secure than the information is transferred in clear text. If on the other hand, information(including not only content, but also authentication)/files have to be secure, than a secure/encryption layer HAS to be used, and has been used since the mid 90s.
Once we found a site, our crawler inspected it by probing certain URLs to determine whether it allowed for anonymous edits, or whether it was protected by CAPTCHAs or the lame puzzle authentication plugin.
I love the colorful clothes she wears And the way the sunlight plays upon her hair I hear the sound of a gentle word On the wind that lifts her perfume through the air
Im pickin up good vibrations Shes giving me excitations Im pickin up good vibrations (oom bop bop good vibrations) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop excitations) Good good good good vibrations (oom bop bop) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop excitations) Good good good good vibrations (oom bop bop) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop excitations)
Close my eyes Shes somehow closer now Softly smile, I know she must be kind When I look in her eyes She goes with me to a blossom world
Im pickin up good vibrations Shes giving me excitations Im pickin up good vibrations (oom bop bop good vibrations) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop excitations) Good good good good vibrations (oom bop bop) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop excitations) Good good good good vibrations (oom bop bop) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop excitations)
(ahhhhhhh) (ah my my what elation) I dont know where but she sends me there (ah my my what a sensation) (ah my my what elations) (ah my my what)
Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations A happenin with her Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations A happenin with her Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations A happenin
Ahhhhhhhh Good good good good vibrations (oom bop bop) (Im pickin up good vibrations) Shes giving me excitations (oom bop bop) (excitations) Good good good good vibrations (oom bop bop) Shes na na...
Na na na na na Na na na Na na na na na Na na na Do do do do do Do do do Do do do do do Do do do
than at least you understand the chances of being caught, and then the question becomes a conversation about risk taking.
(I'm assuming you mean "if and only if", and that this isn't just a roundabout way of saying that anyone who's fooling around deserves to get caught.) No I didn't say that, but I would say anyone who doesn't understand the system AND fools around deserves (see below) to get caught or should not be fooling around in the first place. Originally I said nothing about people who do understand the system. But regardless if you do understand or do not understand the system, and if you do or you don't get caught, trust is still betrayed.
I mean "deserve" exactly in a non-moral sense. I mean "deserve" in a practical, non-hypothetical, non-religious sense, a form that involves lawyers, judges, loss of material objects, loss of privileges. I don't mean "deserve" in a ritual where one might be stoned to death, or one has say a few prayers, or made donate some money to an institution, and maybe some higher power will forgive your indiscretions.
a. deserve to be caught or b. should not be fooling around
Not exactly the same thing, but I know a few married, computer-illiterate people who correspond daily with their fling using email. They think it is safe just because their local computer account is password protected. At the same time, their email program (OL, TB) is set to remember the password, and don't mind walking hand and hand with their fling down Broadway.
Lots of old C code is full of with goto statements to break out of loops, or (even worse) to restart them, and return statements everywhere and anywhere. Are you sure the "old" code you're talking about didn't contain line numbers?
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the whole "piece" he wrote?
TIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistically_significant>
"In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. "A statistically significant difference" simply means there is statistical evidence that there is a difference; it does not mean the difference is necessarily large, important, or significant in the common meaning of the word....
The significance level is usually represented by the Greek symbol, (alpha). Popular levels of significance are 5%, 1% and 0.1%. If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than the -level, the null hypothesis is rejected...."
Bandwidth and interference/reliability are good enough reasons for me not to use WIFI when I don't have to.
But, just because "security" is not (or weakly) configured out of the box, and a lot of users don't bother to read and learn how to configure their wifi device, why should security be a one of those reason (assuming WPA and higher) not to use wifi? Is there a new flaw with WPA (and higher? Yes I know about the TKIP weakness.
"In the office environment, 52% of respondents left their machines on for remote access, and 35% did so to support applications running in the background, of which e-mail and IM were most popular (47%)."
Never mind the fact that emails are saved on the server, but is this device is really necessary in case "An instant messenger (IM) client will require the PC to be on in order for the user to stay "online" (reachable) to their contacts."
So instead of telling a significant number of respondents that they really don't have to leave their computer ON to run background applications such as IM and email (unless of course you are running an IM/email server at work or home), the author does a cartwheel while holding a sermon on how to be green.
Now that everybody has get some green in order to be green, something similar but different, here is a bare-bone OS running on a daughter card (PCIe) which allows secure access to the host's hardware even when the host is OFF but the motherboard still has power. http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/software/smdrac3/drac5/OM53/en/ug/racugc1.htm#31825. Works with Dell. A must if you don't have unrestricted physical access to your servers, and every once in a while the main power cycles but your servers don't boot/reboot automatically.
Small correction to the main article, a couple of the authors are from University of California, San Diego and not University of San Diego.
Sounds like what a typical politician or an administrator would say.
Nonetheless, here are "Oracle's Technical Contributions to Linux" [contributions sounds so much better than develop]
http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/linux-tech-leadership-contributions.html
and a link to Oracle's "Free and Open Source Software" http://oss.oracle.com/
looks extensive
File Transfer Protocol has been around since the early 1970s, and while most servers/clients FTP implementations have a history of exploits, their weakness is due not necessarily because of the exploits but rather because of the way the FTP protocol transfers information. FTP communication includes not only the transfer of files but also the transfer of authentication parameters. All this information is transferred in clear text. Clear text is also the way http transfer information/files. You can think of http as an ftp with anonymous authentication (no authentication required) Clear text transmission only became a major problem when the Internet spread like a virus, and the network could not be trusted from prying eyes.
As a result, secure File Transfer Protocols have been developed, which is nothing more than a transfer protocol (ftp, http, telnet) on top of an encrypted/secure layer. HTTPs, SSH, SFTP, FTP over HTTPS are such protocols, which are used every time security information has to be exchanged securely.
So in conclusion,file/information transferring is performed every time you click a link, not only when you want to upload/download a file. If the contents of the file/information does not need to be secure than the information is transferred in clear text. If on the other hand, information(including not only content, but also authentication)/files have to be secure, than a secure/encryption layer HAS to be used, and has been used since the mid 90s.
Criteria:
Once we found a site, our crawler inspected it by probing certain URLs to determine whether it allowed for anonymous edits, or whether it was protected by CAPTCHAs or the lame puzzle authentication plugin.
I love the colorful clothes she wears
And the way the sunlight plays upon her hair
I hear the sound of a gentle word
On the wind that lifts her perfume through the air
Im pickin up good vibrations
Shes giving me excitations
Im pickin up good vibrations
(oom bop bop good vibrations)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Close my eyes
Shes somehow closer now
Softly smile, I know she must be kind
When I look in her eyes
She goes with me to a blossom world
Im pickin up good vibrations
Shes giving me excitations
Im pickin up good vibrations
(oom bop bop good vibrations)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop excitations)
(ahhhhhhh)
(ah my my what elation)
I dont know where but she sends me there
(ah my my what a sensation)
(ah my my what elations)
(ah my my what)
Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations
A happenin with her
Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations
A happenin with her
Gotta keep those lovin good vibrations
A happenin
Ahhhhhhhh
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
(Im pickin up good vibrations)
Shes giving me excitations
(oom bop bop)
(excitations)
Good good good good vibrations
(oom bop bop)
Shes na na...
Na na na na na
Na na na
Na na na na na
Na na na
Do do do do do
Do do do
Do do do do do
Do do do
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/12/data.doctor.records.cnn
Coincidence? I think not!
Not funny!
(If you live in the US) Have you ever been out of the country in the last 15 years?
That is... "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters"
I mean "deserve" exactly in a non-moral sense. I mean "deserve" in a practical, non-hypothetical, non-religious sense, a form that involves lawyers, judges, loss of material objects, loss of privileges. I don't mean "deserve" in a ritual where one might be stoned to death, or one has say a few prayers, or made donate some money to an institution, and maybe some higher power will forgive your indiscretions.
.
.
.
.
a. deserve to be caught
or
b. should not be fooling around
Not exactly the same thing, but I know a few married, computer-illiterate people who correspond daily with their fling using email. They think it is safe just because their local computer account is password protected. At the same time, their email program (OL, TB) is set to remember the password, and don't mind walking hand and hand with their fling down Broadway.
Virgin Birth?
BFD!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Networ k
My only question is, what is SONY doing in OIN?
http://www.nngroup.com/about/
Maybe you're confusing C with Fortran.
Looks to me like most stories are submitted by 1st time submitters.
wear their tinfoil hats inside out.
Wouldn't removal of names and logos be considered artwork rather than functional differences?
vivito sicut ibi
Nature had no problem creating 90% of the human population 99% sheep.