It's not just a disclaimer - it's the whole site.
There's no way that anyone reading it could possibly think that this site reflected Van Hollen's views.
Ok, I should have put a smiley in, but if you look on page 3 of Private Eye, issue number 1116,1st October 2004, that joke is there. Albeit in cartoon form.
It's an early *warning*
If you can show me a virus writer who can take advantage of a hole by reading about it in a very generalised security bulletin, then I'd hire him on the spot.
(From the article: "The information is purposely not specific and does not disclose any vulnerability details or other information that could put customers at risk." )
Yes it can.
The robot's home page tells you:
- it tries to compensate for anything that would otherwise make it fall over (e.g. a push)
- If it thinks it can't stop itself falling, it puts its arms out, twists its hips and relaxes its joints.
- Then once it's fallen, it gets right back up again.
What a clever little chap. I think I'll buy one to carry me home from the pub
for prospective employers to beat you with.
When a cv comes in, do a Google for the person's name, check them out, their hobbies, their faith, their habits.....
Result: Interviewer knows more about the interviewee than the interviewee knows about the company.
Doh!
Well why didn't they think of that before!
If you eavesdrop on the QC exchange, the photons still have to make there way to the receiver. So the change you caused will be noticed.
If you measure the photons at the receiver, you're not going to re-transmit them.
It works because of the way of measuring the polarisation of the photons.
Put simply, the receiver has two filters, a verical one and a horizontal one. The transmitter also has two filters, but these are at 45 degrees to the receiver filters (i.e. on the diagonals)
A photon is polarised at the transmitter by sending it through a specific one of the two filters. At the receiver, a filter is chosen at random. There is a 50% chance that the the correct filter will be used to correctly 'read' the information carried by the photon. Using enough photons builds up enough results at the receiver that the transmitter can ask:
"What filter did you use for photons 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12"The receiver then replies (in clear text), and the transmitter can then say, ok, you used the correct filter for photons 3, 9 and 12, so we'll use the answers you got from those photons as the basis for our key."
As an eavesdropper on the clear-text line cannot know what answers the recevier received for those photons, the key is secure.
Nonsense.
QC doesn't care in the least how the encrypted information is transmitted. Nor does it even care too much about how it is encrypted.
If you look at the company's website it clearly shows diagrams with the data going along one path, and the (quantum) key going along a dedicated path.
It's all about the transmission of the KEY. The key is transmitted in such a form (individual polarised photons) that it is impossible to intercept the key without changing it.
Yes, they bought Backup Exec (and the non-crystal bits of Seagate Software).
Veritas wrote Disk Manager for Win2K. They also wrote a replacement for NTFS that never saw the light of day.
But don't forget that they built themselves on filesystems, volume management and clustering for unix boxen.
I installed a SUS server for our test network.
2 days later our IS idiots told me to take it off as they had taken a decision that no SUS server would be anywhere on the network.
Business case? What business case?
Slashdot Mirror
A disclaimer!?
It's not just a disclaimer - it's the whole site.
There's no way that anyone reading it could possibly think that this site reflected Van Hollen's views.
Have you actually seen the site?
the engineers who wrote the code actually write tests
Do NOT get the engineer who wrote the code to also write the test.
It's fairly fundamental - the engineer who wrote it will have a prejudiced view of what should/will work.
Get someone else to do it and get a valuable fresh insight.
No - not kidding.
,1st October 2004, that joke is there. Albeit in cartoon form.
Ok, I should have put a smiley in, but if you look on page 3 of Private Eye, issue number 1116
Oh dear - another slashdotter who reads Private Eye.
At least acknowledge your sources, you plagiarist.
That's no moon!
It's an early *warning*
If you can show me a virus writer who can take advantage of a hole by reading about it in a very generalised security bulletin, then I'd hire him on the spot.
(From the article: "The information is purposely not specific and does not disclose any vulnerability details or other information that could put customers at risk." )
Ouch! I used to do that in my old place. Funy how I don't feel the need to now.
It already exists.
You can get a strip that clips on to the edge of your keyboard and has little pins in it that push up.
http://www.deafblind.com/display.html
Yes it can. The robot's home page tells you: - it tries to compensate for anything that would otherwise make it fall over (e.g. a push) - If it thinks it can't stop itself falling, it puts its arms out, twists its hips and relaxes its joints. - Then once it's fallen, it gets right back up again. What a clever little chap. I think I'll buy one to carry me home from the pub
for prospective employers to beat you with. When a cv comes in, do a Google for the person's name, check them out, their hobbies, their faith, their habits..... Result: Interviewer knows more about the interviewee than the interviewee knows about the company.
Possibly the effect is not from /. alone, but the fact that it's been on ElReg already?
Hours before the /. laggards got their arse in gear.
Well, maybe my explanation can be... but then maybe I didn't explain it very well.
I suggest you read this: http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/crypt.html
Doh! Well why didn't they think of that before! If you eavesdrop on the QC exchange, the photons still have to make there way to the receiver. So the change you caused will be noticed. If you measure the photons at the receiver, you're not going to re-transmit them. It works because of the way of measuring the polarisation of the photons. Put simply, the receiver has two filters, a verical one and a horizontal one. The transmitter also has two filters, but these are at 45 degrees to the receiver filters (i.e. on the diagonals) A photon is polarised at the transmitter by sending it through a specific one of the two filters. At the receiver, a filter is chosen at random. There is a 50% chance that the the correct filter will be used to correctly 'read' the information carried by the photon. Using enough photons builds up enough results at the receiver that the transmitter can ask: "What filter did you use for photons 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12" The receiver then replies (in clear text), and the transmitter can then say, ok, you used the correct filter for photons 3, 9 and 12, so we'll use the answers you got from those photons as the basis for our key." As an eavesdropper on the clear-text line cannot know what answers the recevier received for those photons, the key is secure.
Nonsense. QC doesn't care in the least how the encrypted information is transmitted. Nor does it even care too much about how it is encrypted. If you look at the company's website it clearly shows diagrams with the data going along one path, and the (quantum) key going along a dedicated path. It's all about the transmission of the KEY. The key is transmitted in such a form (individual polarised photons) that it is impossible to intercept the key without changing it.
when was the last time you actually *looked forward* to something on the radio? When the interview/requiem for DNA was on... so about 2 years ago
If Microsoft hadn't offered a bounty for his capture?
Yes, they bought Backup Exec (and the non-crystal bits of Seagate Software). Veritas wrote Disk Manager for Win2K. They also wrote a replacement for NTFS that never saw the light of day. But don't forget that they built themselves on filesystems, volume management and clustering for unix boxen.
And what is making me laugh so much is that every five minutes or so I'm getting a pop-up. Here. On /.
So much for that.
I installed a SUS server for our test network. 2 days later our IS idiots told me to take it off as they had taken a decision that no SUS server would be anywhere on the network. Business case? What business case?