You're aware that surface of the earth is nearly 200 million square miles, right? And that's just at sea level. Of course, LEO is the range of 124 to 1240 miles above the surface, which makes the area of that "sphere" roughly 340 square miles at the upper limit. In a perfect world where the device never overlapped its own path (impossible), it would take over a year to cover that sort of area at 18,000 mi/hr at just one altitude, even if we could launch something that big, which we can't. So let's say we decide to less than 50% of each mile of altitude, using a conservative 6 months per mile of altitude, times 1000 miles of altitude gives us 500 years. And that's just for LEO, assuming no junk is added over that half-millenium. It would be "faster" (except that it would happen during the cleanup process anyway) to simply wait for the crap to fall out of orbit on its own.
It's not (just) that they're too cheap -- because really the costs are trivial, especially when compared to the cost of ID theft -- it's that customers don't want them. Lose/forget/damage the OTP and you're hosed. It severely hampers the convenience of online access, and people want convenience.
Once they are denied a driver license, a whole host of otherwise trivial transactions (banking, travel, renting an apartment, etc) become much harder from them to accomplish without attracting attention.
You know, I rented in various places across the country for over 12 years, and I have never been asked for an ID when renting an apartment. Even when I got a mortgage, no physical identification was ever requested, and there are mortgages specifically for people who don't have (or don't want to divulge) financial information, called NINAs.
Additionally, Gilmore v. Gonzales established that traveling without ID is possible. Sure, you may "attract attention" temporarily, but if you never show ID, they'll (probably) never know who you are. And if more people declined to show ID, it wouldn't even raise suspicion.
If I answer the questions truthfully, then a determined attacker would most likely be able to find out the answer to them through some means or another.
True, but is an attacker going to peruse the private lives of a potential target? Doubtful. It's much more cost-efficient to simply move on to an easier target.
Additionally, you could just prepend/append something like "BoA," or a special character, such as "!grandma" and "!rover" so then you only have to remember the truthful answers while still making them virtually useless to a potential attacker.
Of course, if I was phishing, I would just make a page with ALL of the potential questions presented and say something like "Please provide the answers to the questions you previously selected. If you do not remember which questions you selected, provide your answer to all of them and you may then change your settings once you have logged in." Most people would just provide the answers, especially if they were gullible enough to make it to the phishing site in the first place.
Not really. In most cases, you're going to expect some amount of animosity between him and his former employer, since people don't generally leave jobs that they like. You think Microsoft wrote glowing reccomendations for employees who defected to Google? It ain't happening.
Really you can't put much faith in what either the previous employer or the perspective employee are telling you; you just have to evaluate based on the merits of the employee -- education, experience, and the interview.
What is it about music that's so useful when we first meet someone and what kind of information can we extract from the music another person likes?
Not a thing. You can't tell a damned thing about someone based on what kind of music they listen to, or what kind of books they like, or what their favorite color is. What you *can* do is form the basics of a relationship by, perhaps, establishing common ground, as you start to get to know someone. It's superficial and largely unimportant (unless one of you happens to be a musician), but that's how the beginnings of a relationship often are. It's not so much that music is an important or insightful discussion, per se, but rather that almost everyone likes music (except for me, I'm bored of it all), so it's a safe area for discussion. It's smalltalk, like the weather, current events, and celebrities.
...discovered in the markets of 46 other countries on every inhabited continent.
Which begs the question, what country is in Antarctica, and what does the black market there look like?
"Psst. Wanna buy some DVDs?" "Jeff? Is that you?" "My name is Vlad! Now do you vant to buy them or not? Hurry up, I'm freezing my ass off out here." "Whatever Jeff."
Yeah, but only if it's demonstrable. It's really hard to defend in a case like that, especially if the employee indicates some sort of animosity toward him, which they would be inclined to do if they were the sort of people to hurt you out of spite. Moreover, is it really worth your time and energy to prevent a rival company from hiring an employee you don't like? Like I said, most employers won't mess with it.
I'm the CIO of a major hospital. Does our blood bank count as liquid refreshment, and if so, do you think we should sell it to help recoup our costs, or...?
Your career is heavily dependent on your reputation. If you have a reputation as a rogue who will hold the system hostage in order to make yourself indispensable, you will not be hired elsewhere.
Most employers won't volunteer information about a past employee's performance, as they can be held liable if future employment is refused due to their testimony -- especially if they can't prove their assertions.
Now by no means am I trying to imply carte blanche. There are plenty of moral, ethical, and legal reasons not to do something like that, but future employment is not likely to be one of the reasons.
I am not a choreographer or the lawyer of a choreographer, but I'll chime in anyway.
Dancing is ridiculous, and copyrighting a dance doubly so. Dancing is only profitable in that people are paying to see *something* performed well. Nobody ever says "Holy shit, those country line dancers just did a scoot-scoot-twirl instead of a twirl-twirl-scoot! Genius!" or "I can't believe the ballerina did the twinkle toes bit with her hands on her hips and then went right into a bunny hop. I'm going to make that my own." Okay, maybe *some* people say those things, but those people are not a large enough group, nor is their potential "infringement" sufficient that we need federal protection from their antics.
The irony is that "tank man" wasn't run over, although most people think he was.
I just think there are bigger things to worry about than whether or not some parts of the internet are filtered. On the scale of human rights violations, that falls somewhere between banning rubber duckies and mandatory curfew: It's inconvenient, perhaps, but hardly earth shattering. I'd be far more inclined to take issue with companies using underpaid laborers to produce their products.
But as far as I've seen, China is not North Korea or West Germany. Its citizens aren't forced to stay there, and Americans and Europeans travel to and live in China all the time. If China's citizens feel so oppressed, why don't we hear anything about it? Is the international press that incompetent? Or is there just not much of a story? There is no way you can convince me that the Chinese government is effective enough to censor ALL information. Why are there no further protests? Why aren't there riots in the streets and villiagers storming the capital with torches and pitchforks? Maybe it's because things really aren't that bad, and people put up with the inconveniences because they believe it contributes to the greater good.
Or maybe I'm wrong and China is a shithole, but 1 billion people have been cowed into accepting their collective fate.
Slashdot Mirror
roughly 340 square miles
Oops.. Times a million.
You're aware that surface of the earth is nearly 200 million square miles, right? And that's just at sea level. Of course, LEO is the range of 124 to 1240 miles above the surface, which makes the area of that "sphere" roughly 340 square miles at the upper limit. In a perfect world where the device never overlapped its own path (impossible), it would take over a year to cover that sort of area at 18,000 mi/hr at just one altitude, even if we could launch something that big, which we can't. So let's say we decide to less than 50% of each mile of altitude, using a conservative 6 months per mile of altitude, times 1000 miles of altitude gives us 500 years. And that's just for LEO, assuming no junk is added over that half-millenium. It would be "faster" (except that it would happen during the cleanup process anyway) to simply wait for the crap to fall out of orbit on its own.
You sure about that?
Just declare the paint on your house to be a work of art.
It's not (just) that they're too cheap -- because really the costs are trivial, especially when compared to the cost of ID theft -- it's that customers don't want them. Lose/forget/damage the OTP and you're hosed. It severely hampers the convenience of online access, and people want convenience.
Once they are denied a driver license, a whole host of otherwise trivial transactions (banking, travel, renting an apartment, etc) become much harder from them to accomplish without attracting attention.
You know, I rented in various places across the country for over 12 years, and I have never been asked for an ID when renting an apartment. Even when I got a mortgage, no physical identification was ever requested, and there are mortgages specifically for people who don't have (or don't want to divulge) financial information, called NINAs.
Additionally, Gilmore v. Gonzales established that traveling without ID is possible. Sure, you may "attract attention" temporarily, but if you never show ID, they'll (probably) never know who you are. And if more people declined to show ID, it wouldn't even raise suspicion.
If I answer the questions truthfully, then a determined attacker would most likely be able to find out the answer to them through some means or another.
True, but is an attacker going to peruse the private lives of a potential target? Doubtful. It's much more cost-efficient to simply move on to an easier target.
Additionally, you could just prepend/append something like "BoA," or a special character, such as "!grandma" and "!rover" so then you only have to remember the truthful answers while still making them virtually useless to a potential attacker.
Of course, if I was phishing, I would just make a page with ALL of the potential questions presented and say something like "Please provide the answers to the questions you previously selected. If you do not remember which questions you selected, provide your answer to all of them and you may then change your settings once you have logged in." Most people would just provide the answers, especially if they were gullible enough to make it to the phishing site in the first place.
First flawed assumption seems to be that the hard part in re-using code is simply to find it.
Second flawed assumption is that developers aren't even able to find the code which they need to find.
I guess the third flawed assumption was mine, that the first and second assumptions were going to be different?
Not really. In most cases, you're going to expect some amount of animosity between him and his former employer, since people don't generally leave jobs that they like. You think Microsoft wrote glowing reccomendations for employees who defected to Google? It ain't happening.
Really you can't put much faith in what either the previous employer or the perspective employee are telling you; you just have to evaluate based on the merits of the employee -- education, experience, and the interview.
What is it about music that's so useful when we first meet someone and what kind of information can we extract from the music another person likes?
Not a thing. You can't tell a damned thing about someone based on what kind of music they listen to, or what kind of books they like, or what their favorite color is. What you *can* do is form the basics of a relationship by, perhaps, establishing common ground, as you start to get to know someone. It's superficial and largely unimportant (unless one of you happens to be a musician), but that's how the beginnings of a relationship often are. It's not so much that music is an important or insightful discussion, per se, but rather that almost everyone likes music (except for me, I'm bored of it all), so it's a safe area for discussion. It's smalltalk, like the weather, current events, and celebrities.
...discovered in the markets of 46 other countries on every inhabited continent.
Which begs the question, what country is in Antarctica, and what does the black market there look like?
"Psst. Wanna buy some DVDs?"
"Jeff? Is that you?"
"My name is Vlad! Now do you vant to buy them or not? Hurry up, I'm freezing my ass off out here."
"Whatever Jeff."
Yeah, but only if it's demonstrable. It's really hard to defend in a case like that, especially if the employee indicates some sort of animosity toward him, which they would be inclined to do if they were the sort of people to hurt you out of spite. Moreover, is it really worth your time and energy to prevent a rival company from hiring an employee you don't like? Like I said, most employers won't mess with it.
Mr. Gorbachev: Tear down that firewall.
I'm the CIO of a major hospital. Does our blood bank count as liquid refreshment, and if so, do you think we should sell it to help recoup our costs, or...?
Your career is heavily dependent on your reputation. If you have a reputation as a rogue who will hold the system hostage in order to make yourself indispensable, you will not be hired elsewhere.
Most employers won't volunteer information about a past employee's performance, as they can be held liable if future employment is refused due to their testimony -- especially if they can't prove their assertions.
Now by no means am I trying to imply carte blanche. There are plenty of moral, ethical, and legal reasons not to do something like that, but future employment is not likely to be one of the reasons.
Someone's computer (on the other hand) is private property and they have the right to believe that it is a private space (much like your house).
An expectation of privacy does not protect against bugs and/or wiretaps if a warrant is obtained.
Just like "real world" searches, computers may not be searched secretly.
Yeah, thank God for those "This call may be monitored for law enforcement purposes," recordings.
I am not a choreographer or the lawyer of a choreographer, but I'll chime in anyway.
Dancing is ridiculous, and copyrighting a dance doubly so. Dancing is only profitable in that people are paying to see *something* performed well. Nobody ever says "Holy shit, those country line dancers just did a scoot-scoot-twirl instead of a twirl-twirl-scoot! Genius!" or "I can't believe the ballerina did the twinkle toes bit with her hands on her hips and then went right into a bunny hop. I'm going to make that my own." Okay, maybe *some* people say those things, but those people are not a large enough group, nor is their potential "infringement" sufficient that we need federal protection from their antics.
The irony is that "tank man" wasn't run over, although most people think he was.
I just think there are bigger things to worry about than whether or not some parts of the internet are filtered. On the scale of human rights violations, that falls somewhere between banning rubber duckies and mandatory curfew: It's inconvenient, perhaps, but hardly earth shattering. I'd be far more inclined to take issue with companies using underpaid laborers to produce their products.
But as far as I've seen, China is not North Korea or West Germany. Its citizens aren't forced to stay there, and Americans and Europeans travel to and live in China all the time. If China's citizens feel so oppressed, why don't we hear anything about it? Is the international press that incompetent? Or is there just not much of a story? There is no way you can convince me that the Chinese government is effective enough to censor ALL information. Why are there no further protests? Why aren't there riots in the streets and villiagers storming the capital with torches and pitchforks? Maybe it's because things really aren't that bad, and people put up with the inconveniences because they believe it contributes to the greater good.
Or maybe I'm wrong and China is a shithole, but 1 billion people have been cowed into accepting their collective fate.
That's just copywrong.
Futurama is sci-fi like Monty Python is documentary.
HILARITY ensues. Humor allows you to participate.
GPS receivers, etc. Try writing anything in those fields without a background in computer science...
void main() {
string loc = null;
TomTom(loc);
}
Which problem do you want to see cracked first?
The factors for x^2 + 5x + 6 please, showing work.