BEFORE everyone goes to the Ericsson job site and slashdots it, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that there are currently three jobs available: two in the Netherlands and one in Nigeria. Alas, I don't believe any of them involve walking around pretending to be tourists while getting paid.
But one of those jobs might involve posting around pretending to be businessmen trying to transfer huge sums of money out of the country, while getting paid;-) (... and the other two involve barkeeping and pretending to sell coffee...)
Indeed, 3 points are deducted for the severe flaw "system has a luser who blindly runs software he downloaded from the internet."
Re:Headline is Wrong - Not White Hat
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 1
As far as I know, the laptop has to be set up in a certain way, with certain softwares running (airsnort?) in order to detect the opportunity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hproblem. So, it'd be more like a closed, but not locked door, and on a hunch the guy went over and pushed the latch. In that case the question arises what business did he have even trying?
They aren't trying to 'inform', they're hard selling, in bad faith.
Doesn't look like this to me. Just look at the following sentence of their e-mail:
Before you renew please read the following important information from Comodo.
To me, this looks like they aren't pretending to renew the certificate (prolonging the service with the same company), but rather proposing an alternative (i.e. switching companies). If they were pretending to be the same company they'd have said something like "Please read the following important information from Comodo for instructions on renewing your certificate". And they would also avoid naming two different companies (Equifax and Comodo) in the mail. Indeed, why mention the customer's existing supplier (Equifax) if you attempt to make the customer believe that he is already with you (Comodo)? To me this doesn't look like deception, but merely like the over-reaction from the customer, who wrongly assumes that all businesses are as sleazy as Verisign or those toner companies.
2) There are plenty of other curves of constant width; an infinite number, in fact. The old Wankel rotary engine used such a shape. Though a circle is the only curve of constant *radius*, that's not the issue. If you know enough math to realize this, you fail.
However, among all those curves of constant width, a circular shape is easyest to manufacture. So, why waste good money on producing Wankel engine shaped manhole covers, when a simple circle would do the job just as well?
it's not a 'technique', it's just what happens when you expose a frame for 1/48th of a second
Errhm, exposure time is actually rather independant of frame rate. Even movie cameras have shutters: the shutter opens, stays open for exposure time, closes, and then stays closed until the next picture is up. Which means that you may theoretically have an exposure of 1/250 second, but still 24 fps. For obviously reasons, exposure may not be longer than 1/24 though.
Bums don't last very long in Luxembourg. As soon as the existence of a bum comes to the authorities' attention, he's very quickly whisked away into the loonie's asylum in Ettelbrück...
Ya know, Luxembourg is a "clean" country, and has an image to protect;-)
Management will still know the Slashdot readers in its team. They are the ones who quickly close those windows with that weird shade of green when you walk into their office. And those who have these funny conversations at lunch. So it won't be overly hard to tell where that inciteful piece of advice came from.
Or maybe, it was just the Midget (tm) trying to frame those poor Slashdotters?
something tangible that can be used as a "weapon" by "bad guys" and should be kept out of the country.
Yeah, that's it! They were not concerned about piracy, but rather were afraid that this cable could be used by a serial murderer to strangle some poor and hapless customs officers! It's not a piracy tool, it's a dangerous weapon!
And do not forget: cables don't strangle people, people strangle people!
If any 20 1MB packets are enough to reconstruct the information, then you're sending less than 20MB of information.
This is technically true, as you do indeed need to account for space for sequence numbers in packets. However, at 4 bytes per 1456 byte packet, this is negligible (less than a third of a percent).
We disagree then only about how substantially so. If the file is 20 megs, we have 1 meg packets, and the loss rate is exactly 5% (one packet), we need to send at least 25 packets.
That depends on the desired probability to get the file. Working out the probabily that out of 25 packets, less than or exactly five are lost, given that probability of loss of one packet is 5%, we obtain that with 25 packets, the probability of receiving the file is 99.8% (vs a measly 71.7% if just one extra packet was transmitted)
However, now let's take 200 instead, to let the "law of big numbers" play into our favor:
We now need 21 extra packets to get the same 99.8% confidence that your five extra packets gave you for 20. However, now the overhead is only 10% rather than 20. And with 2000 packets,
we only need 137 redundant packets to achieve 99.8% of confidence of successful transmission, that's only 6.8% overhead. The bigger the total number of packets, the closer we get to the theoretically possible 5 percent.
All of this assumes of course that a modern FEC algorithm is used.
Slashdot Mirror
But one of those jobs might involve posting around pretending to be businessmen trying to transfer huge sums of money out of the country, while getting paid ;-) (... and the other two involve barkeeping and pretending to sell coffee ...)
You knew it only after the fact. "Oh, you mean the second hole was for Pat Buchanan? And I thought it was for Gore!"
Indeed, 3 points are deducted for the severe flaw "system has a luser who blindly runs software he downloaded from the internet."
As far as I know, the laptop has to be set up in a certain way, with certain softwares running (airsnort?) in order to detect the opportunity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hproblem. So, it'd be more like a closed, but not locked door, and on a hunch the guy went over and pushed the latch. In that case the question arises what business did he have even trying?
Or, more to the point, the clerk probably found a welcome excuse to explain the presence of this picture on his PC to his boss...
But what business had did he have wardriving in the first place?
Doesn't look like this to me. Just look at the following sentence of their e-mail:
To me, this looks like they aren't pretending to renew the certificate (prolonging the service with the same company), but rather proposing an alternative (i.e. switching companies). If they were pretending to be the same company they'd have said something like "Please read the following important information from Comodo for instructions on renewing your certificate". And they would also avoid naming two different companies (Equifax and Comodo) in the mail. Indeed, why mention the customer's existing supplier (Equifax) if you attempt to make the customer believe that he is already with you (Comodo)? To me this doesn't look like deception, but merely like the over-reaction from the customer, who wrongly assumes that all businesses are as sleazy as Verisign or those toner companies.
However, among all those curves of constant width, a circular shape is easyest to manufacture. So, why waste good money on producing Wankel engine shaped manhole covers, when a simple circle would do the job just as well?
But, if there's a fire at the office, you're supposed to call 911...
Will this be as big of a security nightmare as Frontpage Extensions for Apache have been?
Errhm, exposure time is actually rather independant of frame rate. Even movie cameras have shutters: the shutter opens, stays open for exposure time, closes, and then stays closed until the next picture is up. Which means that you may theoretically have an exposure of 1/250 second, but still 24 fps. For obviously reasons, exposure may not be longer than 1/24 though.
So, you'd say: "My aunt has Microsoft", rather than saying "My aunt has MS"?
ATTENTION!
You can access
very important
information by
this password
DO NOT SAVE
password to disk
use your mind
now press
cancel
Soap works great too. But don't use an entire bar, unless you have a really huge microwave oven...
Easy: use the one at work, or at the school cafeteria.
"Does anybody know where the Swedish MSDN disks are?"
Bums don't last very long in Luxembourg. As soon as the existence of a bum comes to the authorities' attention, he's very quickly whisked away into the loonie's asylum in Ettelbrück...
Ya know, Luxembourg is a "clean" country, and has an image to protect ;-)
Or maybe, it was just the Midget (tm) trying to frame those poor Slashdotters?
Don't worry. There is only one institution in the US which is powerful enough to censor the mighty Slashdot. And Micro$oft is not it.
... it is ok to pirate porn movies?
Yeah, that's it! They were not concerned about piracy, but rather were afraid that this cable could be used by a serial murderer to strangle some poor and hapless customs officers! It's not a piracy tool, it's a dangerous weapon!
And do not forget: cables don't strangle people, people strangle people!
Try it at your dorm or your office kitchen instead!
Reference counting cannot clean up cycles of objects, whereas real garbage collection (makr & sweep, copy & sweep, etc.) can.
Wouldn't max "white" intensity depend on shutter speed and exposition anyways? That's why you have those, after all...
Empire State Building: First Post!
World Trade Center: Last Post!
This is technically true, as you do indeed need to account for space for sequence numbers in packets. However, at 4 bytes per 1456 byte packet, this is negligible (less than a third of a percent).
We disagree then only about how substantially so. If the file is 20 megs, we have 1 meg packets, and the loss rate is exactly 5% (one packet), we need to send at least 25 packets.
That depends on the desired probability to get the file. Working out the probabily that out of 25 packets, less than or exactly five are lost, given that probability of loss of one packet is 5%, we obtain that with 25 packets, the probability of receiving the file is 99.8% (vs a measly 71.7% if just one extra packet was transmitted)
However, now let's take 200 instead, to let the "law of big numbers" play into our favor:
We now need 21 extra packets to get the same 99.8% confidence that your five extra packets gave you for 20. However, now the overhead is only 10% rather than 20. And with 2000 packets, we only need 137 redundant packets to achieve 99.8% of confidence of successful transmission, that's only 6.8% overhead. The bigger the total number of packets, the closer we get to the theoretically possible 5 percent.
All of this assumes of course that a modern FEC algorithm is used.