Yes, it probably will detect it, at least for inexpensive SDR hardware. Most modern receivers are the superheterodyne type, in which an oscillator within the receiver is set to a frequency near the frequency you wish to detect. This simplifies the circuitry and software because you're only processing the DIFFERENCE between the received signal and the reference, rather than directly processing the source waveform at some sample-rate multiple of the frequency of interest.
The detector-detector picks up the oscillation of this reference frequency.
A non-superheterodyne type could be used, but it would be significantly more expensive.
Shielding MIGHT be an option, though one would have to be sure that the reference frequency doesn't leak out through the cabling and antenna, while allowing the input signal (at the same frequency) to come in.
Again, if the -government- is listening to attorney-client conversations, there's a Constitutional issue. If some other random person is doing so, it might be illegal, but it's not unconstitutional.
Violates their Constitutional rights? The federal Constitution specifies and limits what the federal government can do. Did the federal government get copies of the conversations, of the recordd from this private company? If not, one can argue a -privacy- issue, but not a -Constitutional- issue.
The ruling that state laws mandating term limits are unconstitutional is based on the 17th amendment. The 17th says that voters, not state governments, select senators. A state law saying that the person voters aren not allowed to (re)elect whom they choose is contrary to this, the court ruled.
Allowing voters to (de)elect whomever they choose empowers voters, and is therefore consistent with the 17th amendment.
Also, the ruling was 5-4, so a slightly different set of facts could easily swing that one vote anyway.
Yeah this is pretty simple, and not new. One of the major reasons contract jobs pay more in cash is because they don't provide payment in the form of the employer paying your insurance and vacation. So you use some of the extra cash to buy insurance, on the Blue Cross web site - just like you'd buy anything else.
I recently had two job opportunities - a regular employee at a IT security company for $x + insurance, or a contract with Apple for $20,000 more, and no insurance . The insurance and such included with the employment is worth about $14,000, and the stability is worth something, so I took the employment offer. I didn't expect $20,000 more PLUS they'd pay my insurance.
I see, I misunderstood what you were saying. I heard "I've been hired through a recruiter and then the company cut me loose - repeatedly".
> They really don't care about candidates at all, apart from how much they can make off you.
Yeah, I'm sure most are focused on getting their job done, not on you personally. There job is to find someone whom the company will hire. I suppose if someone expected anything different they'd often be disappointed. On the other hand, since they get paid by getting someone hired, they're an ally (not friend) when I'm trying to get hired.
I'm going to tell you something that may be very helpful to you, and which you won't want to hear. Recruiting and on-boarding, then training, a new employee is expensive. Their total cost to hire an IT professional who then needs to be replaced is at least three months of your salary, normally more. Keeping that in mind...
> I didn't say I've never gotten hired through them. I have, but more often than not, I've been cut loose
If they cut you loose after spending ~ $24,000 recruiting you, on-boarding you, and trying to get you up to speed, but still found it made more sense to try again with another candidate rather than to keep you, that means something. It means your work not as actually as good as your resume and what you told them in the interview. Maybe you used to be really good, you're an expert at Perl 5.2, PHP 4, and MySQL 4 perhaps, but haven't kept up. Maybe you know what you're doing, so you give good interview answers but you're sloppy, so your work isn't as good as knowledge. For some reason, you're not worth the salary they offered you. Maybe you're kinda like me - a genius asshole.
If it happened once, that might be just a bad fit. Twice and maybe you're unlucky. If you keep getting "cut loose" repeatedly, there's a reason. And it's not everybody getting let go, it's you who are the common denominator. It might do you a lot of good to talk to your boss and co-workers and find exactly out what the problem is.
Yeah this story is a bit silly. What concept was proved, exactly, that Macs can run encryption software?
Still, it is a reminder that bad things can happen on any computer, so have regular backups, test those backups, and don't store the backups right next to your main system.
Lately I've seen a lot of people with "back ups" to read/write network storage, where the machine pushes it's backup to a network drive it can write to. No bueno. Ransomware will encrypt any accessible network drives too, so your "back ups" will be gone. Lightning, theft, flood, etc would also destroy these back ups at the same time that they destroy the primary machine. backups really need to be offsite and be pull, not push - if your machine SENDS backups, to storage it can write to, the bad guy is going to delete or those backups or take them hostage too.
> In bad cases, it can take a couple weeks to write ten lines of code
Absolutely agreed. And my ten (or 100) lines do the same task that someone else's 3,500 lines did, and do it more elegantly, because I'm using meta-programming.
On the other hand, at the shell, it's helpful if the typing is fast enough that it doesn't effect my train of thought, which can be fast for tasks I know. You mentioned hunt and peck. That ends up being think, stop, hunt, peck, stop, think, stop, hunt, peck, think, stop - breaking one's train of thought. There's a qualitative difference when you're just thinking and the typing takes place automatically, in another mental "thread".
Absolutely. I wish I had known this, and knew how to do it, before.
It could be said: It's not what you know, it's who knows what you know.
It was only fairly recently that I discovered a good way to make it easy for recruiters to discover what my skills are, working with their system.
That put me in a job pretty well matched to my skillset. Since I built skills around what I enjoy, I enjoy my job pretty well. I kind of people I work with now are the types of nerd who read Slashdot, so my boss and his boss might be reading this thread. Did I mention I enjoy my job, and my comments about recruiters refer to how I got into my current position?
Is the Oauth launched from / embedded in the 3rd party site? In other words, does the email link to a 3rd party, which then has an iframe or popup to Google's OAuth? If so, the source of the iframe is a technical detail that's invisible to the user. As far as they can tell, it's a third-party site they're being told to enter their credentials into.
The alternative is to have them log in to the local trusted company web site, which then has an SSO link to the third party, so that users never enter credentials after the third-party site is loaded.
> Secondly, they will chase you regardless of your qualifications because they are paid on commission. Third, they are not your friend.
They get paid their commission if and when they provide the best candidate, the one who gets hired. Twice, a call from a recruiter has resulted in a job offer that doubled my take-home pay - that's pretty friendly in my book. Of course my experience may be different from yours because as I said I make it a point to study my field weekly, not to bitch and moan about "the evil HR departments" who won't recommend me for an interview.
You can continue to complain because people as people continue to not hire you, or you can do something different; your choice.
There are plenty of regulations and such that require all employees take certain training or sign certain forms. In any company of significant size, HR sends out such emails.
In the security realm specifically, SANS is a major, major name. Possibly the best known and respected provider of security training. They offer some of that training at securingthehuman.org. The have a program in which companies can have all employees take SANS training at CompanyName.securingthehuman.org. To ensure that each employee does the training, you have to log in with your credentials.
Of course HR or the security administrator sends a mass email telling all employees to click the link to take their mandatory security training. That's security administrators working with the leading provider of security training, and we're REQUIRING all employees to click an emailed link and enter credentials.
At most security- conscious companies, employees also have to agree to the security policy. In order to have a database showing that every employee has received the policy, we have them LOG IN and click "I have read and agree to the policy". And we send that link out to all employees either upon hire or annually.
We don't just click links, the security professionals -require- all employees to click the log in. Then we get annoyed when an executive or sysadmin clicks a link in an official- looking email and logs in (forgetting that we ourselves did the same thing two weeks before).
Those unions worked great for manufacturing and prevented having those jobs go overseas, didn't they.
A friend of mine who can't get recruiters to leave him alone tells me he makes a point to study weekly, constantly learning. Anyone who is concerned about the level of outsourcing and illegal H1-B usage might keep that in mind.
The EPA and State Department both issued reports saying there was no significant net environmental concern. Some of Obama's donors (especially one who ones the railroad) didn't like that, so they had the study done again. Still, no worries. Still, the guy who owned the railroad didn't like it. So Obama had the EPA and State department keep re-doing the study until one of them got the answer his the railroad owner wanted.
Normally, saying a study is "railroaded" is just a figure of speech. In the Obama administration, it's LITERALLY true.
Yeah way back in 1936 the Hoover dam was under budget. Today, about the same amount of money is spent on the repeated environmental studies of the Keystone pipeline upgrade. Sad.
What's extra sad is that 99% of people don't realize Keystone already runs from Canada to Texas. The upgrade would have meant newer, safer pipes and fittings (along with larger pipe).
The once the infrastructure has been built" argument is getting really old. Carriers spend billions of dollars every year upgrading infrastructure. First, people wanted to get the most out of their 56k modems, downloading blink tags from Geocities (hundreds of bytes per page). When the infrastructure was fast enough, it was hundreds of kilobytes of images per page at hundreds of kbps. Then postage stamp sized video at 1Mbps. Then buffering Youtube. Then HD Netflix at 4 Mbps. Now multiple simultaneous Netflix streams.
We've gone through several generations of infrastructure, increasing speeds by 500x so far, and they're still building it faster and faster because there's no sign of Americans' appetite for more better faster chabging any time soon.
Once you have 10 gigabit fiber to your house and yo want it any faster you can "now that the infrastructure has been built". Well, after it's built and paid for - these things are often built with bonds that need to be paid off.
If going slower puts you further away, try walking at 4MPH and see how far into space you get. I said:
>> If it travels just bit faster, 25,000 MPH, you can head off wherever you want to go in space.
At escape velocity, you CAN head off into space. If you WANT to orbit at say, a geostationary altitude, you can slow down - at that lower speed you WILL orbit - you cannot leave that orbit without applying more power.
In other words, if you want to orbit at a distance, you can go slower. If you want to escape earth's gravity, in order to have complete freedom, you have to achieve escape velocity of 25,000 MPH (or continue to burn your engines for at least an hour which isn't possible due to fuel mass).
To get to low earth orbit, a vehicle needs to be travelling at 17,400 MPH (7.7 km/s). If it travels just bit faster, 25,000 MPH, you can head off wherever you want to go in space. Orbit is 2/3rds of the way to anywhere.
There are two items missing from that analysis, worth $5.5 billion.
First, Motorola had $3 billion in the bank. When Google acquired Motorola, they aquired those bank accounts. Second, Motorola had paid $2.5 billion too much in taxes, deferring their losses until later. The last time I checked it wasn't entirely clear, but Google should have been able to reap those losses.
Before somebody gets their panties in a wad, that's money Motorola had paid in taxes, but wasn't actually owed. Basically Motorola's tax refund.
You're a bit confused. The Wikipedia article isn't a bad start. Sequestration was just extended until I think 2020. Some spending bills have been passed, none of which meet the parameters to break sequestration, because the Republicans haven't been willing to give the democrats a trillion more in pork in exchange for a trillion in republican pork. Not that they don't want it - they just don't want it badly enough to spend $2 trillion in order to get $1 trillion (especially the younger, more fiscally conservative republicans) .
PS, the difference is actually more dramatic than that. Population and GDP increases a bit each year. GDP has been growing at about 2% per year, so federal spending (measured in dollars) can increase by 2% without increasing the government's the -percentage- or -share- of the money that government takes.
So while pre-sequestration, federal government spending increased at 6.5% per year, 2% is simply an increase in the economic size of the country, meaning the feds "share" of our paychecks increased by "only" 4.5% each year. Similarly, after sequestration spending (in dollars) increased by 3%. Of that, 2% is growth, so the government's "cut" in percentage terms increased by 1%.
Looking at the change in the percentage that the government takes, their portion was increasing at 4.5% before sequestration and that was cut to 1% increase after sequestration. So the rate of growth was cut by 80%.
In the five years prior to sequestration legislation, from 2006-2011, federal spending increased from $2.65 trillion to $3.603 trillion. So it was growing 6.5% per year, on average.
Sequestration was passed in 2011 and didn't fully go into effect until early 2013. From 2013-2015, federal spending increased from $3.45 trillion to $3.68 trillion. That's 3% per year.
So it was growing at 6.5% per year before sequestration, and it's been growing at 3% afterwards. I call that a significant difference. it's not a -spending cut-, let's be clear. They're spending 3% more each year. Still, it's quite a bit better than spending 6.5% more each year, as they were doing before sequestration.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it probably will detect it, at least for inexpensive SDR hardware. Most modern receivers are the superheterodyne type, in which an oscillator within the receiver is set to a frequency near the frequency you wish to detect. This simplifies the circuitry and software because you're only processing the DIFFERENCE between the received signal and the reference, rather than directly processing the source waveform at some sample-rate multiple of the frequency of interest.
The detector-detector picks up the oscillation of this reference frequency.
A non-superheterodyne type could be used, but it would be significantly more expensive.
Shielding MIGHT be an option, though one would have to be sure that the reference frequency doesn't leak out through the cabling and antenna, while allowing the input signal (at the same frequency) to come in.
I use vim for editing code. I set defined some aliases so I type (or typo) what I want and vim generates the proper code.
Is Securus a state government now?
Again, if the -government- is listening to attorney-client conversations, there's a Constitutional issue. If some other random person is doing so, it might be illegal, but it's not unconstitutional.
Violates their Constitutional rights? The federal Constitution specifies and limits what the federal government can do. Did the federal government get copies of the conversations, of the recordd from this private company? If not, one can argue a -privacy- issue, but not a -Constitutional- issue.
The ruling that state laws mandating term limits are unconstitutional is based on the 17th amendment. The 17th says that voters, not state governments, select senators. A state law saying that the person voters aren not allowed to (re)elect whom they choose is contrary to this, the court ruled.
Allowing voters to (de)elect whomever they choose empowers voters, and is therefore consistent with the 17th amendment.
Also, the ruling was 5-4, so a slightly different set of facts could easily swing that one vote anyway.
Yeah this is pretty simple, and not new. One of the major reasons contract jobs pay more in cash is because they don't provide payment in the form of the employer paying your insurance and vacation. So you use some of the extra cash to buy insurance, on the Blue Cross web site - just like you'd buy anything else.
I recently had two job opportunities - a regular employee at a IT security company for $x + insurance, or a contract with Apple for $20,000 more, and no insurance . The insurance and such included with the employment is worth about $14,000, and the stability is worth something, so I took the employment offer. I didn't expect $20,000 more PLUS they'd pay my insurance.
I see, I misunderstood what you were saying. I heard "I've been hired through a recruiter and then the company cut me loose - repeatedly".
> They really don't care about candidates at all, apart from how much they can make off you.
Yeah, I'm sure most are focused on getting their job done, not on you personally. There job is to find someone whom the company will hire. I suppose if someone expected anything different they'd often be disappointed. On the other hand, since they get paid by getting someone hired, they're an ally (not friend) when I'm trying to get hired.
I'm going to tell you something that may be very helpful to you, and which you won't want to hear. Recruiting and on-boarding, then training, a new employee is expensive. Their total cost to hire an IT professional who then needs to be replaced is at least three months of your salary, normally more. Keeping that in mind ...
> I didn't say I've never gotten hired through them. I have, but more often than not, I've been cut loose
If they cut you loose after spending ~ $24,000 recruiting you, on-boarding you, and trying to get you up to speed, but still found it made more sense to try again with another candidate rather than to keep you, that means something. It means your work not as actually as good as your resume and what you told them in the interview. Maybe you used to be really good, you're an expert at Perl 5.2, PHP 4, and MySQL 4 perhaps, but haven't kept up. Maybe you know what you're doing, so you give good interview answers but you're sloppy, so your work isn't as good as knowledge. For some reason, you're not worth the salary they offered you. Maybe you're kinda like me - a genius asshole.
If it happened once, that might be just a bad fit. Twice and maybe you're unlucky. If you keep getting "cut loose" repeatedly, there's a reason. And it's not everybody getting let go, it's you who are the common denominator. It might do you a lot of good to talk to your boss and co-workers and find exactly out what the problem is.
Yeah this story is a bit silly. What concept was proved, exactly, that Macs can run encryption software?
Still, it is a reminder that bad things can happen on any computer, so have regular backups, test those backups, and don't store the backups right next to your main system.
Lately I've seen a lot of people with "back ups" to read/write network storage, where the machine pushes it's backup to a network drive it can write to. No bueno. Ransomware will encrypt any accessible network drives too, so your "back ups" will be gone. Lightning, theft, flood, etc would also destroy these back ups at the same time that they destroy the primary machine. backups really need to be offsite and be pull, not push - if your machine SENDS backups, to storage it can write to, the bad guy is going to delete or those backups or take them hostage too.
> In bad cases, it can take a couple weeks to write ten lines of code
Absolutely agreed. And my ten (or 100) lines do the same task that someone else's 3,500 lines did, and do it more elegantly, because I'm using meta-programming.
On the other hand, at the shell, it's helpful if the typing is fast enough that it doesn't effect my train of thought, which can be fast for tasks I know. You mentioned hunt and peck. That ends up being think, stop, hunt, peck, stop, think, stop, hunt, peck, think, stop - breaking one's train of thought. There's a qualitative difference when you're just thinking and the typing takes place automatically, in another mental "thread".
Most languages have used roughly the same operators for at least 40 years. Generations of programmers know > is greater-than. Leave it alone.
Absolutely. I wish I had known this, and knew how to do it, before.
It could be said:
It's not what you know, it's who knows what you know.
It was only fairly recently that I discovered a good way to make it easy for recruiters to discover what my skills are, working with their system.
That put me in a job pretty well matched to my skillset. Since I built skills around what I enjoy, I enjoy my job pretty well. I kind of people I work with now are the types of nerd who read Slashdot, so my boss and his boss might be reading this thread. Did I mention I enjoy my job, and my comments about recruiters refer to how I got into my current position?
Is the Oauth launched from / embedded in the 3rd party site?
In other words, does the email link to a 3rd party, which then has an iframe or popup to Google's OAuth? If so, the source of the iframe is a technical detail that's invisible to the user. As far as they can tell, it's a third-party site they're being told to enter their credentials into.
The alternative is to have them log in to the local trusted company web site, which then has an SSO link to the third party, so that users never enter credentials after the third-party site is loaded.
> Secondly, they will chase you regardless of your qualifications because they are paid on commission. Third, they are not your friend.
They get paid their commission if and when they provide the best candidate, the one who gets hired. Twice, a call from a recruiter has resulted in a job offer that doubled my take-home pay - that's pretty friendly in my book. Of course my experience may be different from yours because as I said I make it a point to study my field weekly, not to bitch and moan about "the evil HR departments" who won't recommend me for an interview.
You can continue to complain because people as people continue to not hire you, or you can do something different; your choice.
There are plenty of regulations and such that require all employees take certain training or sign certain forms. In any company of significant size, HR sends out such emails.
In the security realm specifically, SANS is a major, major name. Possibly the best known and respected provider of security training. They offer some of that training at securingthehuman.org. The have a program in which companies can have all employees take SANS training at CompanyName.securingthehuman.org. To ensure that each employee does the training, you have to log in with your credentials.
Of course HR or the security administrator sends a mass email telling all employees to click the link to take their mandatory security training. That's security administrators working with the leading provider of security training, and we're REQUIRING all employees to click an emailed link and enter credentials.
At most security- conscious companies, employees also have to agree to the security policy. In order to have a database showing that every employee has received the policy, we have them LOG IN and click "I have read and agree to the policy". And we send that link out to all employees either upon hire or annually.
We don't just click links, the security professionals -require- all employees to click the log in. Then we get annoyed when an executive or sysadmin clicks a link in an official- looking email and logs in (forgetting that we ourselves did the same thing two weeks before).
Those unions worked great for manufacturing and prevented having those jobs go overseas, didn't they.
A friend of mine who can't get recruiters to leave him alone tells me he makes a point to study weekly, constantly learning. Anyone who is concerned about the level of outsourcing and illegal H1-B usage might keep that in mind.
The EPA and State Department both issued reports saying there was no significant net environmental concern. Some of Obama's donors (especially one who ones the railroad) didn't like that, so they had the study done again. Still, no worries. Still, the guy who owned the railroad didn't like it. So Obama had the EPA and State department keep re-doing the study until one of them got the answer his the railroad owner wanted.
Normally, saying a study is "railroaded" is just a figure of speech. In the Obama administration, it's LITERALLY true.
Yeah way back in 1936 the Hoover dam was under budget. Today, about the same amount of money is spent on the repeated environmental studies of the Keystone pipeline upgrade. Sad.
What's extra sad is that 99% of people don't realize Keystone already runs from Canada to Texas. The upgrade would have meant newer, safer pipes and fittings (along with larger pipe).
The once the infrastructure has been built" argument is getting really old. Carriers spend billions of dollars every year upgrading infrastructure. First, people wanted to get the most out of their 56k modems, downloading blink tags from Geocities (hundreds of bytes per page). When the infrastructure was fast enough, it was hundreds of kilobytes of images per page at hundreds of kbps. Then postage stamp sized video at 1Mbps. Then buffering Youtube. Then HD Netflix at 4 Mbps. Now multiple simultaneous Netflix streams.
We've gone through several generations of infrastructure, increasing speeds by 500x so far, and they're still building it faster and faster because there's no sign of Americans' appetite for more better faster chabging any time soon.
Once you have 10 gigabit fiber to your house and yo want it any faster you can "now that the infrastructure has been built". Well, after it's built and paid for - these things are often built with bonds that need to be paid off.
If going slower puts you further away, try walking at 4MPH and see how far into space you get. I said:
>> If it travels just bit faster, 25,000 MPH, you can head off wherever you want to go in space.
At escape velocity, you CAN head off into space. If you WANT to orbit at say, a geostationary altitude, you can slow down - at that lower speed you WILL orbit - you cannot leave that orbit without applying more power.
In other words, if you want to orbit at a distance, you can go slower. If you want to escape earth's gravity, in order to have complete freedom, you have to achieve escape velocity of 25,000 MPH (or continue to burn your engines for at least an hour which isn't possible due to fuel mass).
Seriously, Orbital math is hard (for you).
To get to low earth orbit, a vehicle needs to be travelling at 17,400 MPH (7.7 km/s). If it travels just bit faster, 25,000 MPH, you can head off wherever you want to go in space. Orbit is 2/3rds of the way to anywhere.
There are two items missing from that analysis, worth $5.5 billion.
First, Motorola had $3 billion in the bank. When Google acquired Motorola, they aquired those bank accounts. Second, Motorola had paid $2.5 billion too much in taxes, deferring their losses until later. The last time I checked it wasn't entirely clear, but Google should have been able to reap those losses.
Before somebody gets their panties in a wad, that's money Motorola had paid in taxes, but wasn't actually owed. Basically Motorola's tax refund.
You're a bit confused. The Wikipedia article isn't a bad start. Sequestration was just extended until I think 2020. Some spending bills have been passed, none of which meet the parameters to break sequestration, because the Republicans haven't been willing to give the democrats a trillion more in pork in exchange for a trillion in republican pork. Not that they don't want it - they just don't want it badly enough to spend $2 trillion in order to get $1 trillion (especially the younger, more fiscally conservative republicans) .
PS, the difference is actually more dramatic than that. Population and GDP increases a bit each year. GDP has been growing at about 2% per year, so federal spending (measured in dollars) can increase by 2% without increasing the government's the -percentage- or -share- of the money that government takes.
So while pre-sequestration, federal government spending increased at 6.5% per year, 2% is simply an increase in the economic size of the country, meaning the feds "share" of our paychecks increased by "only" 4.5% each year. Similarly, after sequestration spending (in dollars) increased by 3%. Of that, 2% is growth, so the government's "cut" in percentage terms increased by 1%.
Looking at the change in the percentage that the government takes, their portion was increasing at 4.5% before sequestration and that was cut to 1% increase after sequestration. So the rate of growth was cut by 80%.
In the five years prior to sequestration legislation, from 2006-2011, federal spending increased from $2.65 trillion to $3.603 trillion. So it was growing 6.5% per year, on average.
Sequestration was passed in 2011 and didn't fully go into effect until early 2013. From 2013-2015, federal spending increased from $3.45 trillion to $3.68 trillion. That's 3% per year.
So it was growing at 6.5% per year before sequestration, and it's been growing at 3% afterwards. I call that a significant difference. it's not a -spending cut-, let's be clear. They're spending 3% more each year. Still, it's quite a bit better than spending 6.5% more each year, as they were doing before sequestration.