The point is, we don't know what "all they did was...". Perhaps, they just clicked on the link to see where it took them. If you're using a reasonably secure e-mail client and OS, this is a reasonably safe step to take. The most information a standard e-mail would get from this is that you actually clicked on this link and so the e-mail address is valid, etc. Of course, the URL could download a trojan, but with a good browser you'll have an option to execute the trojan or not.
Which is why one should always type in the link, instead of clicking on the link provided. Of course, few people do this, which is why phishing can be successful. Of course, the more devious phishers cyber-squat waiting for you to swap the "i" and the "e" (in some imaginary domain name) or some other such nonsense.
My point is that there are legitimate e-mails that request you visit their web-site. For example, I get e-mails from my bank frequently telling me I have new messages and/or bills and I should check them. These messages provide links to the front page of my bank's URL, which I always type in by hand.
Prior to this you mentioned "it illustrates that army cadets are particularly vulnerable to social engineering attacks, and therefore in dire need of education" (which might very well be true), but it was these employees who entered their passwords.
Granted, the army cadets might have done the same thing (and I agree they would be vulnerable), but the article doesn't explicitly state this.
Most legitimate requests will tell you to log in to the front page of their web-site (where you've already been), and follow a certain chain of links to get to where the information needs to be verified. The biggest hole in this assumption is that someone could have hacked that web-site. But, it will protect you from the more common phishing schemes.
I'd say that the more critical the information, the more you need to protect it. If they're phising for my/. password, for example, I'll force them to give me a retinal scan, but I'll give my SSN away for some of that free beer I keep hearing about.
It doesn't say what the "instructions" were, but it sounds like all they did was go to a web-site. Depending on what these instructions were, the students were either gullible, or just following what seemed to be a legitimate set of instructions. It's really hard to tell the phishers from the legits until you actually see what is being requested of you and/or the URL of the web-site. Of course, this is why phishing is so prevalent.
How would one distinguish the real thing from phishing? Most phishing e-mails give themselves away by their bogus requests: give us your bank account #, SSN, etc. This one was just going to a web-site to verify their grade report. The only way they could have verified this was not legit was to search for the name of the sender and find that he isn't actually at West Point. Of course, many phishing e-mails use actual names, so that wouldn't tell you anything if it did exist.
Of course, I use pine on Unix, so I feel quite comfortable opening up any e-mail. I know this doesn't make me bullet-proof, but so far nothing bad has ever hit me this way.
Shannon Lucid spent 188 consecutive days in space (as compared to 366 consecutive days for cosmonauts Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov). I, too, am curious for our current record holders for most number of total days in space.
is also a Civic - specifically, the hybrid. Just to bring all of this back "on topic".:)
It also occurs to me that some people might point out that the driver of the semi-truck not only managed to escape unharmed, but her truck was also in relatively good condition as well. My response to that would be that if we both had been driving semi-trucks, this would most likely not have been the case.
Oh, and in this case, the driver of the semi also wandered into my lane, and another driver (who was a witness) says he saw her on a cell phone. What's sad/amusing to me, is that in this picture that my wife took of the car, you can see another (smaller) truck driver on his cell phone, rubber-necking at our accident, while towing stuff behind him!
I was recently involved in an accident with a semi-truck at 70 mph. I was driving a 1995 Honda Civic and it handled like a pro. My wife and I walked away without a scratch, and I was even able to drive the car up the exit ramp so that it could be towed away.
My wife and I feel that if we had been driving an SUV, it most likely would have rolled over when we went down the median. Of course, this is pure conjecture.
Neglecting uranium mining, etc., the footprint that a reactor requires can be quite small. We used to have one on the Georgia Tech campus. At the time, the campus itself wasn't even 7 square miles. (They've made a lot of additions recently, but they're probably still not even close to 7 square miles.)
Seriously, it would be nice if there was a way you could hook these up to a USB hub and have each one running a different program. I'm imaging this to be a cheap and easy way to solve "embarassingly parallel" computational problems. Of course, it would be really sweet if these things could then also share their memory so you could use them to solve not-so-embarassingly parallel computational problems.
I realize these things are low end processors, but depending on the problem your solving they might be a good solution - if they could be hooked up in parallel.
Because almost anyone that uses a computer learned how on Microsoft.
I'm guessing you're under 30, or you didn't start programming until you were older.
Back when I started programming (and I'm only 35), MS was not even a glint in Gates' eye. I learned how to program on Intercolor'sCompucolor II, thank you very much.:)
Turn off the compiled headers option, and watch out for "include" discrepancies in the header files you are using. For example, in some compilers <foo> might include <bar>, so when you are using functions from <foo> and <bar> you might mistakenly include only <foo>. This would then compile on the compiler you're used to, but would not compile on a different compiler. Neither compiler is broken in this scenario - it's your code that's broken.
However, the compiled headers option in Visual Studio is a "bug", IMO.
That'll teach me to use [Preview]. At least, until I forget again.:P
Turn off the compiled headers option, and watch out for "include" discrepancies in the header files you are using. For example, in some compilers might include , so when you are using functions from and you might mistakenly include only . This would then compile on the compiler you're used to, but would not compile on a different compiler. Neither compiler is broken in this scenario - it's your code that's broken.
However, the compiled headers option in Visual Studio is a "bug", IMO.
Comments shouldn't tell you what the code does, they should tell you what you wanted the code to do. That way, if there's a bug and what the comment says the code should do disagrees with what the code is actually doing, then you know you've likely come to the right place!
Can you give me a concrete example? I'm trying to imagine an X that holds for planets Mercury through Uranus, but does not hold for Pluto, other than "mass is greater than Y kg". OK, I guess I can think of a few others: "orbit is less eccentric than Z", "orbital plane is less titled than W". I guess I don't see how these cause confusion, however. Can you give me an example where it is necessary to specify "except Pluto"?
(I earned an MS in Physics/Astronomy, but have done no work in the field. For anyone interested in alternate space-time metrics, my thesis is here.)
Pluto was once thought to be much more massive than it is currently known to be. When I was in high school, prevailing theories had it as being slightly larger than Mercury. Furthermore, it was first discovered due to its supposed perturbation on the planet Uranus (those perturbations were, in fact, due to incorrect calculations, IIRC). Additionally, we had very little information on other objects of similar ilk. So, why wouldn't it have been considered a planet?
The flip side of the question is, "should we change its status now?" I don't really care much, but I don't see why its so important whether its a planet or a KBO, from a labeling point of view.
Some might argue that it makes teaching about the Solar System easier, but I think the exceptions can help to make the system more interesting, and, hence, easier to learn about.
Before Einstein explained the precession of Mercury's perihelion, many scientists believed there was a planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. Some even "spotted" it.
Before Einstein explained the precession of Mercury's perihelion, many scientists believed there was a planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. Some even "spotted" it.
(For the "Some" link, search on "Vulcan".)
But when I was in high school, Pluto didn't have a moon, and it's mass was about the same as Mercury. This planet might have been the one they were teaching me about.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Is that evidently, 20% of the cadets didn't dutifully follow the instructions!
The point is, we don't know what "all they did was...". Perhaps, they just clicked on the link to see where it took them. If you're using a reasonably secure e-mail client and OS, this is a reasonably safe step to take. The most information a standard e-mail would get from this is that you actually clicked on this link and so the e-mail address is valid, etc. Of course, the URL could download a trojan, but with a good browser you'll have an option to execute the trojan or not.
Which is why one should always type in the link, instead of clicking on the link provided. Of course, few people do this, which is why phishing can be successful. Of course, the more devious phishers cyber-squat waiting for you to swap the "i" and the "e" (in some imaginary domain name) or some other such nonsense.
My point is that there are legitimate e-mails that request you visit their web-site. For example, I get e-mails from my bank frequently telling me I have new messages and/or bills and I should check them. These messages provide links to the front page of my bank's URL, which I always type in by hand.
Prior to this you mentioned "it illustrates that army cadets are particularly vulnerable to social engineering attacks, and therefore in dire need of education" (which might very well be true), but it was these employees who entered their passwords.
Granted, the army cadets might have done the same thing (and I agree they would be vulnerable), but the article doesn't explicitly state this.
Most legitimate requests will tell you to log in to the front page of their web-site (where you've already been), and follow a certain chain of links to get to where the information needs to be verified. The biggest hole in this assumption is that someone could have hacked that web-site. But, it will protect you from the more common phishing schemes.
I'd say that the more critical the information, the more you need to protect it. If they're phising for my /. password, for example, I'll force them to give me a retinal scan, but I'll give my SSN away for some of that free beer I keep hearing about.
It doesn't say what the "instructions" were, but it sounds like all they did was go to a web-site. Depending on what these instructions were, the students were either gullible, or just following what seemed to be a legitimate set of instructions. It's really hard to tell the phishers from the legits until you actually see what is being requested of you and/or the URL of the web-site. Of course, this is why phishing is so prevalent.
How would one distinguish the real thing from phishing? Most phishing e-mails give themselves away by their bogus requests: give us your bank account #, SSN, etc. This one was just going to a web-site to verify their grade report. The only way they could have verified this was not legit was to search for the name of the sender and find that he isn't actually at West Point. Of course, many phishing e-mails use actual names, so that wouldn't tell you anything if it did exist.
Of course, I use pine on Unix, so I feel quite comfortable opening up any e-mail. I know this doesn't make me bullet-proof, but so far nothing bad has ever hit me this way.
Shannon Lucid spent 188 consecutive days in space (as compared to 366 consecutive days for cosmonauts Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov). I, too, am curious for our current record holders for most number of total days in space.
And here the first thought that came to my mind when the "tenth" reference was made was that a tenth of the participants of LinuxWorld are female!
is also a Civic - specifically, the hybrid. Just to bring all of this back "on topic". :)
It also occurs to me that some people might point out that the driver of the semi-truck not only managed to escape unharmed, but her truck was also in relatively good condition as well. My response to that would be that if we both had been driving semi-trucks, this would most likely not have been the case.
Oh, and in this case, the driver of the semi also wandered into my lane, and another driver (who was a witness) says he saw her on a cell phone. What's sad/amusing to me, is that in this picture that my wife took of the car, you can see another (smaller) truck driver on his cell phone, rubber-necking at our accident, while towing stuff behind him!
I was recently involved in an accident with a semi-truck at 70 mph. I was driving a 1995 Honda Civic and it handled like a pro. My wife and I walked away without a scratch, and I was even able to drive the car up the exit ramp so that it could be towed away.
My wife and I feel that if we had been driving an SUV, it most likely would have rolled over when we went down the median. Of course, this is pure conjecture.
Neglecting uranium mining, etc., the footprint that a reactor requires can be quite small. We used to have one on the Georgia Tech campus. At the time, the campus itself wasn't even 7 square miles. (They've made a lot of additions recently, but they're probably still not even close to 7 square miles.)
Seriously, it would be nice if there was a way you could hook these up to a USB hub and have each one running a different program. I'm imaging this to be a cheap and easy way to solve "embarassingly parallel" computational problems. Of course, it would be really sweet if these things could then also share their memory so you could use them to solve not-so-embarassingly parallel computational problems.
I realize these things are low end processors, but depending on the problem your solving they might be a good solution - if they could be hooked up in parallel.
I'm guessing you're under 30, or you didn't start programming until you were older.
Back when I started programming (and I'm only 35), MS was not even a glint in Gates' eye. I learned how to program on Intercolor's Compucolor II, thank you very much. :)
That'll teach me to use [Preview]. At least, until I forget again. :P
Turn off the compiled headers option, and watch out for "include" discrepancies in the header files you are using. For example, in some compilers might include , so when you are using functions from and you might mistakenly include only . This would then compile on the compiler you're used to, but would not compile on a different compiler. Neither compiler is broken in this scenario - it's your code that's broken.
However, the compiled headers option in Visual Studio is a "bug", IMO.
Others have gotten in trouble for less deliberate eavesdropping. (Well, maybe not less deliberate, but not so much effort was required.)
Perhaps the authorities wouldn't have this problem, but I suspect they would.
Comments shouldn't tell you what the code does, they should tell you what you wanted the code to do. That way, if there's a bug and what the comment says the code should do disagrees with what the code is actually doing, then you know you've likely come to the right place!
I concur on all accounts.
Can you give me a concrete example? I'm trying to imagine an X that holds for planets Mercury through Uranus, but does not hold for Pluto, other than "mass is greater than Y kg". OK, I guess I can think of a few others: "orbit is less eccentric than Z", "orbital plane is less titled than W". I guess I don't see how these cause confusion, however. Can you give me an example where it is necessary to specify "except Pluto"?
(I earned an MS in Physics/Astronomy, but have done no work in the field. For anyone interested in alternate space-time metrics, my thesis is here.)
Pluto was once thought to be much more massive than it is currently known to be. When I was in high school, prevailing theories had it as being slightly larger than Mercury. Furthermore, it was first discovered due to its supposed perturbation on the planet Uranus (those perturbations were, in fact, due to incorrect calculations, IIRC). Additionally, we had very little information on other objects of similar ilk. So, why wouldn't it have been considered a planet?
The flip side of the question is, "should we change its status now?" I don't really care much, but I don't see why its so important whether its a planet or a KBO, from a labeling point of view.
Some might argue that it makes teaching about the Solar System easier, but I think the exceptions can help to make the system more interesting, and, hence, easier to learn about.
Before Einstein explained the precession of Mercury's perihelion, many scientists believed there was a planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. Some even "spotted" it.
(For the "spotted" link, search on "Vulcan".)
You can also read about it here.
Before Einstein explained the precession of Mercury's perihelion, many scientists believed there was a planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. Some even "spotted" it. (For the "Some" link, search on "Vulcan".)
But when I was in high school, Pluto didn't have a moon, and it's mass was about the same as Mercury. This planet might have been the one they were teaching me about. :)
Here's the current weather in Hell.