I wonder how many places there are for which truly accurate documentation exists only in the form of software, and the rest is wiki pages, archived email threads, and Bob who's been doing this for five releases now.
Virus signatures, both physical and virtual, are not just single values. Your shot is for WXYZ; if you run into WXAB you'll still get a bit of response, and hence a bit of head start on fixing it. (4 is probably still not the right number of letters, but you get the idea.)
the majority (possibly the vast majority) of "investing" is just speculation - the company hasn't issued new shares, so you're not really investing in it, you're just buying the theoretical fruits of someone else's investment. Given this, due diligence has kind of fallen by the wayside =/
Fair enough. You have a lot more detail there than wikipedia (their source is from 2014 anyway; it's been modified since then). Thanks for the references:)
The NSA's charter has two goals: improve the security of US stuff, and penetrate the security of non-US stuff. They've apparently decided that attack is more important than defense and it's biting them (and everyone else) in the butt.
It would perhaps be more accurate to have said "the Constitution's provision allowing copyright has no indication that allowing permanent removal of works is intentional". As you note, what it was used for before that and what it's (in practice) been used for are not quite the same thing as what it's supposedly intended for.
Spider Robinson once categorized Heinlein's books in (as I recall) three groups: - aimed at Boy Scouts - I think most of the ones with teenaged protagonists are in this line - edited by Kay Tarrant (who would cut sex no matter who the author was) - rife with references to sex, if not depictions of sex
I partly disagree with you. Critics tell you whether something is Great Art. They've never really been in the business of telling you whether it's enjoyable, although they get billed that way because otherwise nobody would bother to listen to them:)
What's getting us in trouble is not that "getting something out there" is prioritized over security, it's that "now that we're out there, get the next greebly out" is prioritized over security. There's a wide range between "if it's not perfectly secure it doesn't ship" and "security? Forget that, I want colored fonts."
That said, if you're the first in the field, nobody's going to know you spent an extra two months making it secure before initial release. If you're playing copycat, though, it takes something more visible to get the attention away from the front runner.
if the folks in the district tend to vote the same way (say, 65-35 split) then 29% of the votes are wasted; the district would come out the same without them. So those 29% had their vote effectively ignored (and quite possibly the entire district was ignored, as "safe"). Divvying by neighborhood doesn't seem like the optimal way to make sure everyone's vote matters.
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding what I said. Let me go into more detail.
Say you have a message M that you want to hide. Encrypt it using an unapproved method. Now you have U(M). Encrypt that using an approved method. Now you have A(U(M)).
Just looking at that from the outside, it's using an approved method. You can't tell that there's an unapproved method inside without decrypting it back down to U(M), and that's not supposed to happen without a warrant. So either they have a warrant before they look, and they're still in the position of "we have a warrant but we can't read it", or they don't, and they have no justification for knowing that you used unapproved encryption.
True. As long as they're _supposed_ to get a warrant to decrypt anything, they have to come up with an explanation for why they know that the payload is itself encrypted. If they get permission to decrypt all wrappers preemptively that goes out the window, but it becomes even harder for them to claim that they won't look at things without proper oversight.
This. Even if it was mandated tomorrow that all encrypted communications shall use X cipher to which the government has a backdoor and through magic psychic software it actually cannot be decrypted without proper cause and judicial review, there's not anything that would prevent the payload from being encrypted again using a different system, and there would be no way to tell without actually decrypting the outer wrapper.
Fertilizer creates zones near the shore. Warmer water is being tagged as the cause for low oxygen zones further out in the ocean (and larger than the shore zones).
The excerpt in the summary distinguishes between near-shore zones, which are caused by runoff, and further out (and larger) zones, which are supposedly caused by warmer water just not carrying as much oxygen. I have't RTFA so I can't speak to whether the rest of it maintains that distinction clearly, but there is supposed to be a distinction.
This is very informative, thank you. Given those figures, 850k looks depressingly like breakeven for the company (if that 86mil/yr was all for this, it would take them (860mil+10mil+3.8mil)/0.95 = 919.79 mil revenue to break even, or about 920k per for 1k patients). I'm sure they have some profit baked in to the figure, but not as egregious as the summary headline sounds by itself.
As I understand it, corporate security has the option of having you accept their keys and MITMing everything, allowing scanning and caching of activity performed from inside the corporate network. Is that incorrect?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many places there are for which truly accurate documentation exists only in the form of software, and the rest is wiki pages, archived email threads, and Bob who's been doing this for five releases now.
Virus signatures, both physical and virtual, are not just single values. Your shot is for WXYZ; if you run into WXAB you'll still get a bit of response, and hence a bit of head start on fixing it. (4 is probably still not the right number of letters, but you get the idea.)
I hadn't, but now that you mention it... :)
And one day it will crash and burn. Literally.
the majority (possibly the vast majority) of "investing" is just speculation - the company hasn't issued new shares, so you're not really investing in it, you're just buying the theoretical fruits of someone else's investment. Given this, due diligence has kind of fallen by the wayside =/
Fair enough. You have a lot more detail there than wikipedia (their source is from 2014 anyway; it's been modified since then). Thanks for the references :)
The NSA's charter has two goals: improve the security of US stuff, and penetrate the security of non-US stuff. They've apparently decided that attack is more important than defense and it's biting them (and everyone else) in the butt.
It would perhaps be more accurate to have said "the Constitution's provision allowing copyright has no indication that allowing permanent removal of works is intentional". As you note, what it was used for before that and what it's (in practice) been used for are not quite the same thing as what it's supposedly intended for.
Spider Robinson once categorized Heinlein's books in (as I recall) three groups:
- aimed at Boy Scouts - I think most of the ones with teenaged protagonists are in this line
- edited by Kay Tarrant (who would cut sex no matter who the author was)
- rife with references to sex, if not depictions of sex
if your competitors are doing the same analysis well, even the low-risk folks aren't high profit, because they're the ones getting the low rates.
oh, you're looking for causation. All they have is correlation. Sorry =/
why would her insurance get involved? If she's fully stopped, the person who pushed her is at fault for what she gets pushed into.
I partly disagree with you. Critics tell you whether something is Great Art. They've never really been in the business of telling you whether it's enjoyable, although they get billed that way because otherwise nobody would bother to listen to them :)
What's getting us in trouble is not that "getting something out there" is prioritized over security, it's that "now that we're out there, get the next greebly out" is prioritized over security. There's a wide range between "if it's not perfectly secure it doesn't ship" and "security? Forget that, I want colored fonts."
That said, if you're the first in the field, nobody's going to know you spent an extra two months making it secure before initial release. If you're playing copycat, though, it takes something more visible to get the attention away from the front runner.
if the folks in the district tend to vote the same way (say, 65-35 split) then 29% of the votes are wasted; the district would come out the same without them. So those 29% had their vote effectively ignored (and quite possibly the entire district was ignored, as "safe"). Divvying by neighborhood doesn't seem like the optimal way to make sure everyone's vote matters.
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding what I said. Let me go into more detail.
Say you have a message M that you want to hide.
Encrypt it using an unapproved method. Now you have U(M).
Encrypt that using an approved method. Now you have A(U(M)).
Just looking at that from the outside, it's using an approved method. You can't tell that there's an unapproved method inside without decrypting it back down to U(M), and that's not supposed to happen without a warrant. So either they have a warrant before they look, and they're still in the position of "we have a warrant but we can't read it", or they don't, and they have no justification for knowing that you used unapproved encryption.
True. As long as they're _supposed_ to get a warrant to decrypt anything, they have to come up with an explanation for why they know that the payload is itself encrypted. If they get permission to decrypt all wrappers preemptively that goes out the window, but it becomes even harder for them to claim that they won't look at things without proper oversight.
so we're going to be selecting for smarter criminals, yes? Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
Actually, the IRS cancelled that contract and went with Experian. How much better that is is up for debate, of course :)
Apparently they suspended the contract on 10/12, Equifax protested, and the GAO denied the protest.
This. Even if it was mandated tomorrow that all encrypted communications shall use X cipher to which the government has a backdoor and through magic psychic software it actually cannot be decrypted without proper cause and judicial review, there's not anything that would prevent the payload from being encrypted again using a different system, and there would be no way to tell without actually decrypting the outer wrapper.
Fertilizer creates zones near the shore. Warmer water is being tagged as the cause for low oxygen zones further out in the ocean (and larger than the shore zones).
The excerpt in the summary distinguishes between near-shore zones, which are caused by runoff, and further out (and larger) zones, which are supposedly caused by warmer water just not carrying as much oxygen. I have't RTFA so I can't speak to whether the rest of it maintains that distinction clearly, but there is supposed to be a distinction.
This is very informative, thank you. Given those figures, 850k looks depressingly like breakeven for the company (if that 86mil/yr was all for this, it would take them (860mil+10mil+3.8mil)/0.95 = 919.79 mil revenue to break even, or about 920k per for 1k patients). I'm sure they have some profit baked in to the figure, but not as egregious as the summary headline sounds by itself.
all while you SIP your beverage of choice!
As I understand it, corporate security has the option of having you accept their keys and MITMing everything, allowing scanning and caching of activity performed from inside the corporate network. Is that incorrect?