It depends. If you are actually saying "It belongs to...", you do not need to form the posessive with an apostrophe, and the simplest thing would be to say "It belongs to the Jobs family." If you are actually forming the posessive as in my example in another post, e.g. "We're going over to the Jobs' house", then you do use the apostrophe, but not the extra 's', because in this case it's plural.
In short: "The dog belongs to the Jobses." "The Jobses' dog ran away."
That's correct, in that we would say "We're going over to the Jobs' house". The difference here is that "Jobs" in that context refers to the family, which is plural. In that case, it's not a singular proper noun, and there should not be an extra 's' added. The MLA covers this case, and there is no contradiction with what I posted earlier.
Disclaimer: I'm not a grammar nazi, I don't correct others, and I myself am not always correct. I was just trying to provide information, not go off on people about grammar.
While it's true that we don't have a direct equivalent to L'Académie française, we do have the Modern Language Association, which also has a style guide that is generally considered authoritative in many communities. (Granted, there are a few other style guides, but I think MLA is the most prevalent.) According to the MLA:
"to form the possessive of any singular proper noun, add an apostrophe and an s" ( 3.4.7.e).
Therefore, as odd as it might look to you, Jobs's is the correct form. (Chicago manual of style also concurs on this issue. There are examples, as well as a few exceptions, at CMS 7.17-23.)
A lot of comments have been directed towards video quality and codec, but what about the audio? At least when I buy a DVD of anything filmed recently, I know I'm going to get a DD5.1 track, and hopefully also a DTS track of even higher quality (usually a much higher bitrate). Think about this: I want to download a two hour movie. Take 120 minutes * 60s/min * 1.5Mbit/sec (DTS) * 1 MByte / 8MBits, and you have about 1.35 gigabytes just for the audio track alone. Somehow, I don't see Apple giving me that. I'm much more worried that they will expect me to watch Lord of the Rings with a 128kbit 2-channel audio track, and there's no way in hell I'm doing that.
Yeah, that's great. I will just tell my mother that when she wants to "google something", that she just needs to type http://64.233.187.99/ into her address bar. I'm sure she will remember it. In fact, tomorrow I expect her to call me and proudly proclaim that she "64 dot 233 dot 187 dot 99'd something".
The point the post was trying to make is that we rely on DNS and name resolution, and that expecting everyone to use URLs (and as you suggest, different port numbers), is an absolute nightmare.
The program effectively turns anyone's personal computer into a proxy server. Once the software is installed on a computer in, say, Canada, that person creates a contact list of trusted friends or family members in censored countries and sends his or her IP address to them. No advertising needed.
How is sending your IP address to a contact list not advertising? I am advertising to a (supposedly trusted) list of people, and I have to be sure that I am not also advertising to the Chinese authorities that I am operating a server, else when they see my cousin connect to it they know to go arrest him. I.e. it's now my responsibility to make sure that everyone on my list is clean. Plus, this means that I now have to leave my computer on essentially 24/7. (I am usually not awake the same hours Chinese people are.) Great. There goes my power bill.
Also from TFA:
But Psiphon doesn't stop there. Unlike most Internet traffic, Psiphon data is encrypted and shoots around the world on a network reserved for secure financial transactions, so a censor cannot see what the person is accessing. And a censor wouldn't be able to tell a Psiphon request from a MasterCard purchase.
Exactly what separate network is this that is somehow being joined to the Internet, and why would the providers of this network agree to a huge increase of traffic on said network? For that matter, why would my ISP not start packet shaping the hell out of anything going out to this supposedly separate network? My ISP certainly has good reason to packet shape this traffic, especially since they're already screwing with my VoIP traffic...
Given the text of the interview in the article, I'm guessing that he is not in this country, or at the very least that he's a non-native speaker.
My logic: There is a line where the reporter is interviewing the 'kid'. He says the following:
why i did it? i've read an article on yahoo or smth like this
Aside from the obvious grammatical issues, the last word of the sentence is indicative of the fact that he may be a non-native speaker of English. A native speaker would likely use the word "that" instead of "this" when using the phrase "something like" in conjunction with an action taken in the past.
There's also the fact that he said "I've read" rather than "I read". While the former is not incorrect (using the past participle, 'have'), a native speaker is more likely to use the simple past ("I read" rather than "I have read"). This is especially true of a younger native speaker.
While it's obviously difficult to analyze the grammar of a script kiddy, if I had to bet I would say that he is a non-native speaker. Could easily be German, or east european given the language patterns.
That's actually pretty simple. You tell the lady your pin number (or in the case of an automated system, you just press the numbers). Obviously this has major security issues as anyone can swipe your pin quite easily, but that wasn't the question.
The real problem with this is not phones, but systems where credit cards are expected to be usable without any keypads etc. For instance, if you take Metro in D.C., the farecard machines don't have pinpads, you just shove in your credit card and take it out. Where I work, we have a parking lot that you just shove a credit card in the reader when you enter, and shove the credit card back in when you leave. No signatures, no pins, no anything like that. Require a pin and you've created a lot more hassle (especially given that there is no keypad).
In other words, adding a pin just adds an inconvenience, not much security. (Chip and pin is different, because there you actually have a smartcard rather than just a magstripe and pin which you can easily swipe. But that wasn't the question.)
Had you RTFA'd, you would know that the "11lb Pencil" is a name that the editor from THG gave a HP laptop (can't remember the part number) that was given to employees to replace forms which were previously filled in with pencil. The new laptops and the associated changes with "going digital" were of little practical use. In the end, the things were no more useful than a pencil for the application they were purchased for, but much bulkier, hence the term 11lb pencil.
I'm not sure if the parent post was just unfunny or ignorant, but it's definitely -1 overrated.
As far as government/quasi-government (FFRDCs) go: They're worth considering, but definitely beware of the fact that most of the application periods for anything requiring a security clearance will be August-October give or take. Also beware of the fact that you will almost inevitably have to put up with what may seem like B.S. bureaucracy, things will happen slowly, and that you will need to learn patience.
With that said, consider applying (next year) to some of the following: Los Alamos National Labs (LANL) (lanl.gov) MIT Lincoln Labs (www.ll.mit.edu) Sandia National Labs (www.sandia.gov) National Security Agency (www.nsa.gov) Defense Intelligence Agency (www.dia.mil)
and more. (AKA apply to a bunch, and hope. If you're good, you should get a few offers, but it's tough if you are a freshman / sophomore...)
Just a note on the societies issue: I don't know where you go to school, but at many schools there is an IEEE chapter. Join IEEE as a student member ($20/yr give or take, I don't remember exactly how much), and then you are automtically a member of your college chapter of IEEE. IEEE is usually a great way to network, and if your chapter is worth anything they will be bringing companies to talk and hire students on campus.
Once you get to be an upperclassman, join HNK (Eta Kappa Nu) if they are on your campus. It's a EE/CE/CS honors society that has strong ties to industry. You'd be amazed how many interviews you can get through something like that.
Internet2 is already here, and it's not making the net faster and hardier for people who want to download podcasts, pr0n, and spam. From the project: "Led by more than 200 U.S. universities, working with industry and government, Internet2 develops and deploys advanced network applications and technologies for research and higher education, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet."
Internet2 is not something that Comcast is going to offer you access to in a few years. It's a collaborative network accessable only by a few universities and a few other select partners, and is not going to replace the current Internet. Rather, a few select technologies that actually work might get pushed down, but don't expect to see anything groundbreaking. I've had access to Internet2 for quite a few years now, and to be honest it's really... anticlimactic.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that there are no climatologists on the list? There has been a lot of research in the area lately, with many significant results. Or perhaps that's the problem...
You're missing the fact that the biometric data (actually, likely all data on the card) is signed. Think of it this way:
The issuer of the card has a certificate issued for that purpose. When the card issuer creates your card, they store your biometric information and a signature of that information on the card. If anyone tries to change the biometric information, the signature is no longer valid. Assuming that the certificate uses strong encryption and that the private part of the certificate's signing key is protected (which are both reasonable assumptions), then the data integrity is ensured.
This makes a lot of practical sense. If you want to pull everything from a centralized database, then your readers all have to be networked. This means that each reader next to every door in the building must be networked, and while that's fine for many situations, in some areas it's not practical. With the signed data on the card, the user can present their card which contains their biometrics and access credentials, the reader can verify this locally, and then act accordingly. Of course you still need to have a way to publish the root certificate and CRLs from time to time, but it does give you more flexibility.
The summary is wrong. It says the investigator paid $200. From TFA: "According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code". Hamilton is on the $10 bill, not the $100 (That would be Franklin). Two Hamiltons is $20, hence the next sentence saying "...another $20 transaction..."
It places the law in the years which saw Clinton in the White House, but you have to remember that in 1998 the GOP controlled both houses of Congress - 55-45 in Senate, 223-211-1 in the House.
I wonder what the monetary value of this story is? It's essentially free advertising for companies on a website filled with nerds who order lots of equipment online and have no qualms about doing so.
I like newegg.com - and I wonder how much revenue they get directly attributable to this story and this comment.
This is really not that new. Before the current roboceptionist, we had Valerie. I really can't tell the difference between the two - when they first installed Tank, I thought it was a Halloween joke. (He looks somewhat like Frankenstein on the monitor). There is a different face and a different voice, but it seems the same. If you ask "Will it rain tomorrow" he will either not understand your question, or give you the current weather. Trying to find out tomorrow's weather is still rather difficult. Yes, it is an interesting experiment, and yes, it can give directions (rather clearly) to various locations on campus, but it's not at the point where secretaries need to worry about losing their jobs (yet).
Funny or not, the parent post is one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. The fact is that we do live in a small world, and it's not as if you simply disappear after quitting. I've always left on a positive note, and I would never consider anything else, regardless of what I may have thought of my employer. You never know if your last day is really your last day ever, or just the last day for a while. I have gone back to an old job before (thankfully with a much better salary the second time around), and if I had done what the parent post suggests, that would definitely not be possible.
Don't ever burn your bridges. Your past boss may be your future boss - you never know. And if your job gets outsourced to India, and you're looking for a position to fall back to... well, good luck if you follow the parent post's suggestion.
This is a valid point, especially when you look at the number of small fish in the pond. You have small registrars, you have small CAs (do you really trust Unizeto? I don't even know what it is, and yet by default Mozilla gives it the same trust as it gives Verisign.) Even so, I posit that it really doesn't matter how much trust I can place in the CAs and the registrars, because the (unfortunate) end result is that most users, when presented with a certificate error, simply click OK. We train users to do this. Many corporate and educational entities set up their own CAs, and then when users see a message in their browser about an untrusted CA, the tech staff just tells them to 'click ok'. As such, the user is now conditioned to click 'OK'. What have we done? Totally diminished the usefulness of the trust aspect of SSL.
I'm not going to call you crazy, but perhaps short-sighted. We alternate OS users (I use Linux) often like to poke fun at MS users and say "Well, my OS doesn't get hit with virii, so you should switch". Why do you suppose we're not getting hit? It's not that we're impervious, as I remember getting hit with an Apache worm about three years back. It's the fact that we're not a big enough target. If Apple had 90% market share, then you would see a lot more malware being written to target Mac OS (or openssl, or whatever common library you care to think of that would be used by the majority.)
I think Apple has done great things with their OS, it looks nice, is relatively easy to use, but I don't think anyone has really solved the problem of insecure software being hit by malware. Apple and Linux are merely doging the bullet (for the most part) because they currently don't enjoy the same desktop marketshare that Windows enjoys. The day that changes, I promise that you will see disagreeable persons targeting us with "keylogger.jpg.sh" and "lovebug.sh"
I have a real problem in that they expect me to be able to tell just by looking at a screenshot from (what I believe to be) Outlook Express. I can't hover over links to see if the URL matches the displayed text, I can't look at the message source, and I sure as hell can't see the headers. How am I supposed to be able to tell for sure without this? Sure, I can get most of them, but #3,9 for example would be very nice to see the headers of.
Re:If I had a million dollars...
on
Barenaked USB Drive
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes, but if I had my choice I would take at least AAC -audiophile (with no DRM, obviously). A typical 3:30 song is about 7.3MB, so I could still fit around 17 songs. And if space is tight, then just bump it to a 256mb thumbdrive. That would still be economical at the $30 price point, and 256mb is the smallest thumbdrive that I will actually carry anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends. If you are actually saying "It belongs to...", you do not need to form the posessive with an apostrophe, and the simplest thing would be to say "It belongs to the Jobs family." If you are actually forming the posessive as in my example in another post, e.g. "We're going over to the Jobs' house", then you do use the apostrophe, but not the extra 's', because in this case it's plural.
In short:
"The dog belongs to the Jobses."
"The Jobses' dog ran away."
That's correct, in that we would say "We're going over to the Jobs' house". The difference here is that "Jobs" in that context refers to the family, which is plural. In that case, it's not a singular proper noun, and there should not be an extra 's' added. The MLA covers this case, and there is no contradiction with what I posted earlier.
Disclaimer: I'm not a grammar nazi, I don't correct others, and I myself am not always correct. I was just trying to provide information, not go off on people about grammar.
While it's true that we don't have a direct equivalent to L'Académie française, we do have the Modern Language Association, which also has a style guide that is generally considered authoritative in many communities. (Granted, there are a few other style guides, but I think MLA is the most prevalent.) According to the MLA:
"to form the possessive of any singular proper noun, add an apostrophe and an s"
( 3.4.7.e).
Therefore, as odd as it might look to you, Jobs's is the correct form. (Chicago manual of style also concurs on this issue. There are examples, as well as a few exceptions, at CMS 7.17-23.)
A lot of comments have been directed towards video quality and codec, but what about the audio? At least when I buy a DVD of anything filmed recently, I know I'm going to get a DD5.1 track, and hopefully also a DTS track of even higher quality (usually a much higher bitrate). Think about this: I want to download a two hour movie. Take 120 minutes * 60s/min * 1.5Mbit/sec (DTS) * 1 MByte / 8MBits, and you have about 1.35 gigabytes just for the audio track alone. Somehow, I don't see Apple giving me that. I'm much more worried that they will expect me to watch Lord of the Rings with a 128kbit 2-channel audio track, and there's no way in hell I'm doing that.
Err.... that should read "expecting everyone to use IPs". And before anyone goes off on a rant, I did use the preview button.
Yeah, that's great. I will just tell my mother that when she wants to "google something", that she just needs to type http://64.233.187.99/ into her address bar. I'm sure she will remember it. In fact, tomorrow I expect her to call me and proudly proclaim that she "64 dot 233 dot 187 dot 99'd something".
The point the post was trying to make is that we rely on DNS and name resolution, and that expecting everyone to use URLs (and as you suggest, different port numbers), is an absolute nightmare.
For those who are wondering - the 2.0 alpha build renders the ACID 2 test exactly the same as Mozilla 1.7.12. (http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html #top)
I don't personally think that the ACID 2 test is the be-all end-all test, but I know the question will be asked, hence the post.
Given the text of the interview in the article, I'm guessing that he is not in this country, or at the very least that he's a non-native speaker.
My logic: There is a line where the reporter is interviewing the 'kid'. He says the following:
Aside from the obvious grammatical issues, the last word of the sentence is indicative of the fact that he may be a non-native speaker of English. A native speaker would likely use the word "that" instead of "this" when using the phrase "something like" in conjunction with an action taken in the past.
There's also the fact that he said "I've read" rather than "I read". While the former is not incorrect (using the past participle, 'have'), a native speaker is more likely to use the simple past ("I read" rather than "I have read"). This is especially true of a younger native speaker.
While it's obviously difficult to analyze the grammar of a script kiddy, if I had to bet I would say that he is a non-native speaker. Could easily be German, or east european given the language patterns.
That's actually pretty simple. You tell the lady your pin number (or in the case of an automated system, you just press the numbers). Obviously this has major security issues as anyone can swipe your pin quite easily, but that wasn't the question.
The real problem with this is not phones, but systems where credit cards are expected to be usable without any keypads etc. For instance, if you take Metro in D.C., the farecard machines don't have pinpads, you just shove in your credit card and take it out. Where I work, we have a parking lot that you just shove a credit card in the reader when you enter, and shove the credit card back in when you leave. No signatures, no pins, no anything like that. Require a pin and you've created a lot more hassle (especially given that there is no keypad).
In other words, adding a pin just adds an inconvenience, not much security. (Chip and pin is different, because there you actually have a smartcard rather than just a magstripe and pin which you can easily swipe. But that wasn't the question.)
Had you RTFA'd, you would know that the "11lb Pencil" is a name that the editor from THG gave a HP laptop (can't remember the part number) that was given to employees to replace forms which were previously filled in with pencil. The new laptops and the associated changes with "going digital" were of little practical use. In the end, the things were no more useful than a pencil for the application they were purchased for, but much bulkier, hence the term 11lb pencil.
I'm not sure if the parent post was just unfunny or ignorant, but it's definitely -1 overrated.
As far as government/quasi-government (FFRDCs) go: They're worth considering, but definitely beware of the fact that most of the application periods for anything requiring a security clearance will be August-October give or take. Also beware of the fact that you will almost inevitably have to put up with what may seem like B.S. bureaucracy, things will happen slowly, and that you will need to learn patience.
With that said, consider applying (next year) to some of the following:
Los Alamos National Labs (LANL) (lanl.gov)
MIT Lincoln Labs (www.ll.mit.edu)
Sandia National Labs (www.sandia.gov)
National Security Agency (www.nsa.gov)
Defense Intelligence Agency (www.dia.mil)
and more. (AKA apply to a bunch, and hope. If you're good, you should get a few offers, but it's tough if you are a freshman / sophomore...)
Just a note on the societies issue: I don't know where you go to school, but at many schools there is an IEEE chapter. Join IEEE as a student member ($20/yr give or take, I don't remember exactly how much), and then you are automtically a member of your college chapter of IEEE. IEEE is usually a great way to network, and if your chapter is worth anything they will be bringing companies to talk and hire students on campus.
Once you get to be an upperclassman, join HNK (Eta Kappa Nu) if they are on your campus. It's a EE/CE/CS honors society that has strong ties to industry. You'd be amazed how many interviews you can get through something like that.
Internet2 is already here, and it's not making the net faster and hardier for people who want to download podcasts, pr0n, and spam. From the project: "Led by more than 200 U.S. universities, working with industry and government, Internet2 develops and deploys advanced network applications and technologies for research and higher education, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet."
Internet2 is not something that Comcast is going to offer you access to in a few years. It's a collaborative network accessable only by a few universities and a few other select partners, and is not going to replace the current Internet. Rather, a few select technologies that actually work might get pushed down, but don't expect to see anything groundbreaking. I've had access to Internet2 for quite a few years now, and to be honest it's really... anticlimactic.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that there are no climatologists on the list? There has been a lot of research in the area lately, with many significant results. Or perhaps that's the problem...
You're missing the fact that the biometric data (actually, likely all data on the card) is signed. Think of it this way:
The issuer of the card has a certificate issued for that purpose. When the card issuer creates your card, they store your biometric information and a signature of that information on the card. If anyone tries to change the biometric information, the signature is no longer valid. Assuming that the certificate uses strong encryption and that the private part of the certificate's signing key is protected (which are both reasonable assumptions), then the data integrity is ensured.
This makes a lot of practical sense. If you want to pull everything from a centralized database, then your readers all have to be networked. This means that each reader next to every door in the building must be networked, and while that's fine for many situations, in some areas it's not practical. With the signed data on the card, the user can present their card which contains their biometrics and access credentials, the reader can verify this locally, and then act accordingly. Of course you still need to have a way to publish the root certificate and CRLs from time to time, but it does give you more flexibility.
The summary is wrong. It says the investigator paid $200. From TFA:
"According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code". Hamilton is on the $10 bill, not the $100 (That would be Franklin). Two Hamiltons is $20, hence the next sentence saying "...another $20 transaction..."
It places the law in the years which saw Clinton in the White House, but you have to remember that in 1998 the GOP controlled both houses of Congress - 55-45 in Senate, 223-211-1 in the House.
I wonder what the monetary value of this story is? It's essentially free advertising for companies on a website filled with nerds who order lots of equipment online and have no qualms about doing so.
I like newegg.com - and I wonder how much revenue they get directly attributable to this story and this comment.
This is really not that new. Before the current roboceptionist, we had Valerie. I really can't tell the difference between the two - when they first installed Tank, I thought it was a Halloween joke. (He looks somewhat like Frankenstein on the monitor). There is a different face and a different voice, but it seems the same. If you ask "Will it rain tomorrow" he will either not understand your question, or give you the current weather. Trying to find out tomorrow's weather is still rather difficult. Yes, it is an interesting experiment, and yes, it can give directions (rather clearly) to various locations on campus, but it's not at the point where secretaries need to worry about losing their jobs (yet).
Funny or not, the parent post is one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. The fact is that we do live in a small world, and it's not as if you simply disappear after quitting. I've always left on a positive note, and I would never consider anything else, regardless of what I may have thought of my employer. You never know if your last day is really your last day ever, or just the last day for a while. I have gone back to an old job before (thankfully with a much better salary the second time around), and if I had done what the parent post suggests, that would definitely not be possible.
Don't ever burn your bridges. Your past boss may be your future boss - you never know. And if your job gets outsourced to India, and you're looking for a position to fall back to... well, good luck if you follow the parent post's suggestion.
This is a valid point, especially when you look at the number of small fish in the pond. You have small registrars, you have small CAs (do you really trust Unizeto? I don't even know what it is, and yet by default Mozilla gives it the same trust as it gives Verisign.) Even so, I posit that it really doesn't matter how much trust I can place in the CAs and the registrars, because the (unfortunate) end result is that most users, when presented with a certificate error, simply click OK. We train users to do this. Many corporate and educational entities set up their own CAs, and then when users see a message in their browser about an untrusted CA, the tech staff just tells them to 'click ok'. As such, the user is now conditioned to click 'OK'. What have we done? Totally diminished the usefulness of the trust aspect of SSL.
I'm not going to call you crazy, but perhaps short-sighted. We alternate OS users (I use Linux) often like to poke fun at MS users and say "Well, my OS doesn't get hit with virii, so you should switch". Why do you suppose we're not getting hit? It's not that we're impervious, as I remember getting hit with an Apache worm about three years back. It's the fact that we're not a big enough target. If Apple had 90% market share, then you would see a lot more malware being written to target Mac OS (or openssl, or whatever common library you care to think of that would be used by the majority.)
I think Apple has done great things with their OS, it looks nice, is relatively easy to use, but I don't think anyone has really solved the problem of insecure software being hit by malware. Apple and Linux are merely doging the bullet (for the most part) because they currently don't enjoy the same desktop marketshare that Windows enjoys. The day that changes, I promise that you will see disagreeable persons targeting us with "keylogger.jpg.sh" and "lovebug.sh"
I have a real problem in that they expect me to be able to tell just by looking at a screenshot from (what I believe to be) Outlook Express. I can't hover over links to see if the URL matches the displayed text, I can't look at the message source, and I sure as hell can't see the headers. How am I supposed to be able to tell for sure without this? Sure, I can get most of them, but #3,9 for example would be very nice to see the headers of.
Yes, but if I had my choice I would take at least AAC -audiophile (with no DRM, obviously). A typical 3:30 song is about 7.3MB, so I could still fit around 17 songs. And if space is tight, then just bump it to a 256mb thumbdrive. That would still be economical at the $30 price point, and 256mb is the smallest thumbdrive that I will actually carry anyways.