A new born baby has astounded the scientific world by not growing older. FBI agents on the scene deny rumours they are looking for Elvis, who is said to be leading a flotilla of UFOs projecting a stasis field.
And your organization matches. I've interviewed at places like that, and couldn't get out the door fast enough. Usually the phone interview is enough, but once or twice I've gone face to face.
Employees who put up with bosses like you and jobs like yours are not good creative quality employees. They are self-losers to tolerate that kind of bullshit.
Furthermore, such contracts aren't legal. Fat chance getting anything out of an employee who quits short of that one year mark. Again, any employee who believes that kind of threat isn't a good worker to start with.
Cracking the whip may work on slaves, but people who stay at a job voluntarily are much more productive and pro-active.
I bet most of your employees spend their time looking for ways to shift blame and responsibility, either up or sideways. Any problem comes up, they dodge and weave, duck and cover. Any one with initiative has long since left.
Perhaps a 20 year Unix veteran admin would be worth triple, but going thru some admin course and memorizing the minimum man pages for a few commands is no substitute for those 20 years.
Maybe yon newbie could fake his way into such a job for triple pay, but it wouldn't last long.
Think about it in pure econmics terms -- if mere coursework tripled pay, world and dog would be lining up for it. How long would it stay secret? The mere fact that it hasn't happened should be proof enough it's not going to happen.
Some idiot wrote up that list. The Pentium math bug isn't even there. And the F00F bug is called a "math" bug, along with this description:...F0 0F C7 C8 By simply executing these four bits -- those aren't bits, bozo, they're hex digits! His OS knowledge is equally impressive where he lists vulnerable operating systems: Unix, Solaris, Windows 95, Windows NT... -- hey! Solaris IS a Unix.
Sorry about not finding his bugs in the rest of his article. I didn't read any more.
By "assume an intruder", I don't mean call 911. I mean save the video, beep the pager. Perhaps wait for a certain continuous motion, do some extra analysis. Anyway, motion detectors alone will also be confused by a cat unless set up properly.
Here's a clue: everything has to appear somewhere first. Whether by milliseconds depending on which customer gets the smoothest credit card swipe, or years because the infrastructure works that way, it doesn't show up everywhere simultaneously.
Let's suppose that the USofA has 90% of the manufacturing capacity in the world. Would that not mean that 10% is elsewhere? And -- guess what -- 10% of the products will show up somewhere other than in the USofA first!
Why do you bitch and moan about "consumer devices" appearing elsewhere first? Did you bitch and moan that the first iOpener didn't appear in Europe first? Did you bitch and moan that Tivo and Replay(sp?) appeared in the USofA first? Are you going to bitch and moan when the first M$ X-box appears in the USofA first?
Hmmmm.... didn't the first cell phones appear here anyway? Oh, you mean the *latest* cell phones! Ah, so does that mean you will bitch and moan when Europe is stuck with their 3G phones and we skip from 2G to 4G? No, I bet not.
I thought of that too. There's a new Axis camera which can download 30 frames a second. Have the computer do that, but delete them after 5 seconds, UNLESS something's triggered capture mode, in which case you have 5 seconds of prelude to the trigger. Meanwhile, you login remotely and watch the video, report it in real time to the cops.
What I really like is that it only requires a few cameras, not a sensor at every window and door, and web cams are almost a commodity item, so if one breaks, get another. Especially if they return jpegs, no need for custom software -- just download, filter, process.
I was looking into this too. I even have a dozen or so temperature probes scattered around, and my computer reads and logs them every 5 minutes. No use yet. Eventually may control the thermostat when I build my dream house:-)
I was looking for motion sensors, light sensors, and window / door switches, when someone suggested using webcams. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Download a new picture every second:
If anything has changed dramatically, go into full speed mode and assume an intruder.
Run an edge analysis to see where the window edges are -- use canned comparisons to know if windows are open or closed (don't turn on the furnace if windows are open; don't turn on the whole house fan unless they are open).
Use the overall light level for light sensing (when to turn lights on or off.
...that there may well have been a virus on the computer which stole the private key, passphrase, etc. This is like signing a document without realizing the evil banker has carbon paper and another document beneath the one you are signing.
He's not talking about how reliable PGP is, or the mathematics of public key crypto.
I've never done this, and I'm too lazy to try it out for you; thus, YMMV:-)
How about putting the remote work on a separate branch? The remote site sends their diffs back to HQ periodically (mail gets thru after a while, eh?). HQ updates their copy of the remote branch, uses the standard CVS capabilities to merge back into the main branch, and sends the latest main branch diffs back to the remote site. The remote site updates the main branch from the tarball, and (here's the part I am not sure of) updates their own branch from the main branch.
I have never updated a branch from the head, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.
The key is that each site never diddles the other's branch except when they receive diffs. It seems so simple and opbvious to me that I'm probably missing something...
IFF is not very useful. Do you perhaps remember a few years back when the air force shot down two army helicopters in the Iraq northern no-fly zone? They misidentified them.
Remember the USS Vincennes that shot down the Iran airliner?
IFF has been aorund since WWII (55+ years) and has never been so reliable that pilots actually trusted it. No doubt current versions are better than older stuff, but it's hardly perfect, or even good enough.
If IFF were so good, why do they spend billions on radar which can identify the airplane type from radar returns?
When I lived there o so many years ago. He came in surprisingly well, say 5th out of 20 or something. He's obviously not Scoth: he hasn't mellowed with age.
OK, here's a mod to fix that
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 2
If A sues, and B only wants to spend $1000, but A wants to spend a million, A can go ahead and loan the money. B has to accept, but doesn't have to spend.
So you bury the body, spend $1 on your defense, the prosecution spends lots more and loans you the money, you don't spend it.
Yes indeed, step right up, getcher red hot press releases right here at Press Releases for Pardners, Stuffed 'n' Flatters. We got yer corporate flunky press releases, yer flunky corporate press releases,....
Man now this is cutting edge stuff! Not only has slashdot put out a QNX press release as "news for nerds, stuff that matters", but some QNX flunky submits a press release as a comment, not even in response to a question!
We are really bleeding edge here. I am so proud to be a part of this new style journalism.
They seem to be saying how wonderful that all this free source code is wonderful because it takes just a recompile to work on QNX, but Giving source code away freely for everyone to use does not make sense for everybody so they don't have to give anything back.
Is this what it says? Am I confoozed?
--
Here's my simple solution
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 2
Neither party can spend more than the other.
If A wants to sue B, and B only wants to spend $1000, then A can't spend more than $1000.
A can offer to loan B money for the defense. In this case, if A wins, B owes that money in addition. If A loses, A loses the money too. But B has to agree, and of course if B has no money to pay it back, tough luck A!
Works both ways, in all cases, including the criminal cases.
There would probably have to be some minimum, at least the minimum to file suit (filing fees, etc). And it would be hard to enforce to the dime. But it would curb the blatant excesses where A has 5 lieyers in court and B has one.
Isn't it about time for all these victimized corporations to act according to established principles of innocent until preved guilty? How about one of the poor victimized corporation suing or getting criminal charges filed? If these internal papers were so important, why don't they prove it?
Don't say the papers weren't important enough. They apparently were only important enough to smash some helpless customer in a most cowardly fashion. I say if it's not important enough to file charges or sue, then it's not important enough to act on, period.
I've seen crowds come in and (dare I say it:-) slashdot the poor guard. They all flash cards all at once, a big, moving, wiggling mob. There's not a chance he can actually give each card the diligence he should. How about that guy in the back of the crowd who threw his hand up as if, or the other one who didn't even bother? How many times did I come in with someone else and one card was good enough?
Whether or not the guard sees every card, how well does he inspect them? That's the monotony problem. If it even looks remotely close enough, he is so bored that he doesn't pay a lot of attention. Ever been driving, look to the side for a lane change, and do a double take because there was a car you didn't realize was there? Why didn't the first look catch it? -- Because you were bored with such a routine task.
No human guard can pay attention to everybody. Cardlocks are better, but how many times have a bunch of you come back from lunch, one guy does the cardlock, everybody else crowds thru. Now imagine it's a big lunch, 50 people (an awards ceremony, release party, going away party, etc) and some appropriately dressed stranger comes thru at the end, even catches the door and comes thru, or fakes it with a swipe and catches the door? Suppose he's not dressed like a typical engineer in that crowd, but has a fancy suit, briefcase, etc? How many engineers (or secretaries, assembly line people, etc) would actually challenge him?
Happened all the time when I worked in such places. I've been to friends' companies where they let me in, in front of a guard and all.
Most rent-a-cops get near minimum wage. How motivated do you think they are?
Furthermore, doing the same thing all the time numbs one to exceptions. If one out of ten visitors needs some kind of personal attention, the guards would be much more alert in general. When days on end go by with nothing to break the monotony, they get complacent, and it doesn't take much to fool them.
You yourself say "You may scoff at these 'rules' and say that no one follows them, but the majority of people do."
Security isn't a democracy; majority does *not* rule. It only takes one crook getting by to steal that laptop.
So *any* price they can get, above and beyond shipping and handling, is pure profit to them. And there's a cost to throwing them out which they wouldn't have any more.
Slashdot Mirror
A new born baby has astounded the scientific world by not growing older. FBI agents on the scene deny rumours they are looking for Elvis, who is said to be leading a flotilla of UFOs projecting a stasis field.
--
And your organization matches. I've interviewed at places like that, and couldn't get out the door fast enough. Usually the phone interview is enough, but once or twice I've gone face to face.
Employees who put up with bosses like you and jobs like yours are not good creative quality employees. They are self-losers to tolerate that kind of bullshit.
Furthermore, such contracts aren't legal. Fat chance getting anything out of an employee who quits short of that one year mark. Again, any employee who believes that kind of threat isn't a good worker to start with.
Cracking the whip may work on slaves, but people who stay at a job voluntarily are much more productive and pro-active.
I bet most of your employees spend their time looking for ways to shift blame and responsibility, either up or sideways. Any problem comes up, they dodge and weave, duck and cover. Any one with initiative has long since left.
--
Buying a hammer does not qualify you to build houses.
Buying a camo hat and shiny boots does not make you a soldier of fortune.
Buying a Mazda Miata does not make you an F1 champion.
Buying a golf ball does not make you Tiger Woods.
--
Perhaps a 20 year Unix veteran admin would be worth triple, but going thru some admin course and memorizing the minimum man pages for a few commands is no substitute for those 20 years.
Maybe yon newbie could fake his way into such a job for triple pay, but it wouldn't last long.
Think about it in pure econmics terms -- if mere coursework tripled pay, world and dog would be lining up for it. How long would it stay secret? The mere fact that it hasn't happened should be proof enough it's not going to happen.
--
Some idiot wrote up that list. The Pentium math bug isn't even there. And the F00F bug is called a "math" bug, along with this description: ...F0 0F C7 C8 By simply executing these four bits -- those aren't bits, bozo, they're hex digits! His OS knowledge is equally impressive where he lists vulnerable operating systems: Unix, Solaris, Windows 95, Windows NT... -- hey! Solaris IS a Unix.
Sorry about not finding his bugs in the rest of his article. I didn't read any more.
--
By "assume an intruder", I don't mean call 911. I mean save the video, beep the pager. Perhaps wait for a certain continuous motion, do some extra analysis. Anyway, motion detectors alone will also be confused by a cat unless set up properly.
--
Here's a clue: everything has to appear somewhere first. Whether by milliseconds depending on which customer gets the smoothest credit card swipe, or years because the infrastructure works that way, it doesn't show up everywhere simultaneously.
Let's suppose that the USofA has 90% of the manufacturing capacity in the world. Would that not mean that 10% is elsewhere? And -- guess what -- 10% of the products will show up somewhere other than in the USofA first!
Why do you bitch and moan about "consumer devices" appearing elsewhere first? Did you bitch and moan that the first iOpener didn't appear in Europe first? Did you bitch and moan that Tivo and Replay(sp?) appeared in the USofA first? Are you going to bitch and moan when the first M$ X-box appears in the USofA first?
Hmmmm.... didn't the first cell phones appear here anyway? Oh, you mean the *latest* cell phones! Ah, so does that mean you will bitch and moan when Europe is stuck with their 3G phones and we skip from 2G to 4G? No, I bet not.
--
I thought of that too. There's a new Axis camera which can download 30 frames a second. Have the computer do that, but delete them after 5 seconds, UNLESS something's triggered capture mode, in which case you have 5 seconds of prelude to the trigger. Meanwhile, you login remotely and watch the video, report it in real time to the cops.
What I really like is that it only requires a few cameras, not a sensor at every window and door, and web cams are almost a commodity item, so if one breaks, get another. Especially if they return jpegs, no need for custom software -- just download, filter, process.
--
I was looking for motion sensors, light sensors, and window / door switches, when someone suggested using webcams. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Download a new picture every second:
--
...that there may well have been a virus on the computer which stole the private key, passphrase, etc. This is like signing a document without realizing the evil banker has carbon paper and another document beneath the one you are signing.
He's not talking about how reliable PGP is, or the mathematics of public key crypto.
--
I've never done this, and I'm too lazy to try it out for you; thus, YMMV :-)
How about putting the remote work on a separate branch? The remote site sends their diffs back to HQ periodically (mail gets thru after a while, eh?). HQ updates their copy of the remote branch, uses the standard CVS capabilities to merge back into the main branch, and sends the latest main branch diffs back to the remote site. The remote site updates the main branch from the tarball, and (here's the part I am not sure of) updates their own branch from the main branch.
I have never updated a branch from the head, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.
The key is that each site never diddles the other's branch except when they receive diffs. It seems so simple and opbvious to me that I'm probably missing something...
--
IFF is not very useful. Do you perhaps remember a few years back when the air force shot down two army helicopters in the Iraq northern no-fly zone? They misidentified them.
Remember the USS Vincennes that shot down the Iran airliner?
IFF has been aorund since WWII (55+ years) and has never been so reliable that pilots actually trusted it. No doubt current versions are better than older stuff, but it's hardly perfect, or even good enough.
If IFF were so good, why do they spend billions on radar which can identify the airplane type from radar returns?
--
You need a metal door and floor. Maybe plastic will work, or linoleum. No carpet or wood or tile.
Put the P4 on the floor where you want the door to stay. Rig up the power supply so it's activated by the door opening enough to contact the P4.
Now if the door is held in place long enough, the P4 will weld itself to both the door and the floor, making a permanent doorstop.
This is useful for moving, as you no longer need to use a bulky moving box to keep the door open.
Any patent lawyers out there want to put this in the right language?
--
When I lived there o so many years ago. He came in surprisingly well, say 5th out of 20 or something. He's obviously not Scoth: he hasn't mellowed with age.
--
For fans of these kinds of pictures, Astronomy Picture of the Day is hard to beat. They have a this same picture for today.
--
If A sues, and B only wants to spend $1000, but A wants to spend a million, A can go ahead and loan the money. B has to accept, but doesn't have to spend.
So you bury the body, spend $1 on your defense, the prosecution spends lots more and loans you the money, you don't spend it.
--
Yes indeed, step right up, getcher red hot press releases right here at Press Releases for Pardners, Stuffed 'n' Flatters. We got yer corporate flunky press releases, yer flunky corporate press releases, ....
--
Man now this is cutting edge stuff! Not only has slashdot put out a QNX press release as "news for nerds, stuff that matters", but some QNX flunky submits a press release as a comment, not even in response to a question!
We are really bleeding edge here. I am so proud to be a part of this new style journalism.
--
They seem to be saying how wonderful that all this free source code is wonderful because it takes just a recompile to work on QNX, but Giving source code away freely for everyone to use does not make sense for everybody so they don't have to give anything back.
Is this what it says? Am I confoozed?
--
Neither party can spend more than the other.
If A wants to sue B, and B only wants to spend $1000, then A can't spend more than $1000.
A can offer to loan B money for the defense. In this case, if A wins, B owes that money in addition. If A loses, A loses the money too. But B has to agree, and of course if B has no money to pay it back, tough luck A!
Works both ways, in all cases, including the criminal cases.
There would probably have to be some minimum, at least the minimum to file suit (filing fees, etc). And it would be hard to enforce to the dime. But it would curb the blatant excesses where A has 5 lieyers in court and B has one.
--
Isn't it about time for all these victimized corporations to act according to established principles of innocent until preved guilty? How about one of the poor victimized corporation suing or getting criminal charges filed? If these internal papers were so important, why don't they prove it?
Don't say the papers weren't important enough. They apparently were only important enough to smash some helpless customer in a most cowardly fashion. I say if it's not important enough to file charges or sue, then it's not important enough to act on, period.
--
I've seen crowds come in and (dare I say it :-) slashdot the poor guard. They all flash cards all at once, a big, moving, wiggling mob. There's not a chance he can actually give each card the diligence he should. How about that guy in the back of the crowd who threw his hand up as if, or the other one who didn't even bother? How many times did I come in with someone else and one card was good enough?
Whether or not the guard sees every card, how well does he inspect them? That's the monotony problem. If it even looks remotely close enough, he is so bored that he doesn't pay a lot of attention. Ever been driving, look to the side for a lane change, and do a double take because there was a car you didn't realize was there? Why didn't the first look catch it? -- Because you were bored with such a routine task.
No human guard can pay attention to everybody. Cardlocks are better, but how many times have a bunch of you come back from lunch, one guy does the cardlock, everybody else crowds thru. Now imagine it's a big lunch, 50 people (an awards ceremony, release party, going away party, etc) and some appropriately dressed stranger comes thru at the end, even catches the door and comes thru, or fakes it with a swipe and catches the door? Suppose he's not dressed like a typical engineer in that crowd, but has a fancy suit, briefcase, etc? How many engineers (or secretaries, assembly line people, etc) would actually challenge him?
Happened all the time when I worked in such places. I've been to friends' companies where they let me in, in front of a guard and all.
Happens all the time.
--
Most rent-a-cops get near minimum wage. How motivated do you think they are?
Furthermore, doing the same thing all the time numbs one to exceptions. If one out of ten visitors needs some kind of personal attention, the guards would be much more alert in general. When days on end go by with nothing to break the monotony, they get complacent, and it doesn't take much to fool them.
You yourself say "You may scoff at these 'rules' and say that no one follows them, but the majority of people do."
Security isn't a democracy; majority does *not* rule. It only takes one crook getting by to steal that laptop.
--
So *any* price they can get, above and beyond shipping and handling, is pure profit to them. And there's a cost to throwing them out which they wouldn't have any more.
--
...contrary to your leadin...
--