I have no problem keeping the hours I want at Google, and have never felt pressured to stay later. The fact that so many people freely choose to work longer hours definitely has something to do with the perks, but my impression is that it isn't really that Google doesn't value balance.
"Google's internal security watches you like a hawk"
Uhh...no. I walk around with my badge concealed, explicitly to see how much of a problem it causes, and I have been stopped less than a handful of times this year, and probably less than twenty last year. (Barring events that are explicitly high-security.)
Excuse me, but it is required, by law, to put accurate information in the WHOIS database. If that information is false you can have your domain name registration revoked. If your registrar refuses to do it then the registrar can be reported to ICANN.
Too many people have latched on to this theory.
Listen...the Matrix is not multitiered.
The theory that Zion is another Matrix is wrong.
If you're interested in my argument, here it is:
http://www.livejournal.com/~kaigeX
Too many people have latched on to this theory.
Listen...the Matrix is not multitiered.
The theory that Zion is another Matrix is wrong.
If you're interested in my argument, here it is:
http://www.livejournal.com/~kaigeX
XOR is not inherently weak. A One-Time Pad is the strongest possible encryption, if the pad was actually generated randomly, itis the same bit-length as the message, and it is only used once (hence the name).
I believe what was meant by calling XOR weak, was in reference to the "classic crypto" variant. See, the One-Time Pad is inconvienent because it has to actually be random, and it has to be big to use it on a meaningfuly amount of data.
So, a "solution" was to use a shorter amount of random data, and just use it over and over and over up to the length of the message. So, maybe your pad is 001100101 and then to encrypt a longer message you use something like 001100101001100101001100. Obviously, this generates patterns in the ciphertext and is easy to break.
Another solution is something like RC4. It generates a random stream and XORs that with the keyseed. Problem is, you can only use the SAME stream ONCE. If you do not, there are certain things you can do to tease out the plaintext. This is one of the weaknesses in WEP encryption (802.11b).
Slashdot Mirror
I have an office, and have since the day I started. So do a whole lot of people. Of course there *are* also cubes.
I have no problem keeping the hours I want at Google, and have never felt pressured to stay later. The fact that so many people freely choose to work longer hours definitely has something to do with the perks, but my impression is that it isn't really that Google doesn't value balance.
Yes, because being curious about security makes one a horse's ass. You must be real popular here.
20 times a year doesn't seem like a lot to me. How many times do you think you'd be stopped walking around NSA without a badge?
...but who would choose Microsoft from that mix? o_O
"Google's internal security watches you like a hawk"
Uhh...no. I walk around with my badge concealed, explicitly to see how much of a problem it causes, and I have been stopped less than a handful of times this year, and probably less than twenty last year. (Barring events that are explicitly high-security.)
There is officially a Leisure Suit Larry 4, subtitled "The Missing Floppies". http://pc.ign.com/objects/621/621156.html
Excuse me, but it is required, by law, to put accurate information in the WHOIS database. If that information is false you can have your domain name registration revoked. If your registrar refuses to do it then the registrar can be reported to ICANN.
Too many people have latched on to this theory. Listen...the Matrix is not multitiered. The theory that Zion is another Matrix is wrong. If you're interested in my argument, here it is: http://www.livejournal.com/~kaigeX
Too many people have latched on to this theory. Listen...the Matrix is not multitiered. The theory that Zion is another Matrix is wrong. If you're interested in my argument, here it is: http://www.livejournal.com/~kaigeX
XOR is not inherently weak. A One-Time Pad is the strongest possible encryption, if the pad was actually generated randomly, itis the same bit-length as the message, and it is only used once (hence the name).
I believe what was meant by calling XOR weak, was in reference to the "classic crypto" variant. See, the One-Time Pad is inconvienent because it has to actually be random, and it has to be big to use it on a meaningfuly amount of data.
So, a "solution" was to use a shorter amount of random data, and just use it over and over and over up to the length of the message. So, maybe your pad is 001100101 and then to encrypt a longer message you use something like 001100101001100101001100. Obviously, this generates patterns in the ciphertext and is easy to break.
Another solution is something like RC4. It generates a random stream and XORs that with the keyseed. Problem is, you can only use the SAME stream ONCE. If you do not, there are certain things you can do to tease out the plaintext. This is one of the weaknesses in WEP encryption (802.11b).
Anyways, hope that helps, back to work...
~Richard M. Conlan