"You can read a case history of the chip's design here (free registration required, though)."
And $20 to get the PDF, unless I'm missing something (I don't have institutional access)
103 posts • joined 13 Jun 2007
It's not like this one organization would even have been in the minority here, ILOVEYOU was a major wake up call for many orgs to put more work into their email scanning.
Many orgs, if they had incoming scanners at all were just using signature based checks so of no use against a rapidly spreading worm based on social engineering.
If, every time you update your billboard, you find that someone keeps posting outrageously dangerous advice onto the middle of it, but does leave your name prominently associated with it, would you be so relaxed about leaving your billboard unsecured? The biggest risk with HTTP is content being intercepted and *replaced* en-route (malicious scripts, etc)
Whilst there are some circumstances where HTTPS can be MITMed, it's a strictly smaller subset of the cases where HTTP can be MITMed. So if forcing everyone to abandon HTTP reduces the opportunities for MITMs (and working to further reduce MITM attacks on HTTPS are still ongoing), why are you against it?
Thankfully this was during integration testing, and I was doing my best to break things.
We were developing a secure system for the MOD. The client machines we were working on were going to be running a locked down version of Windows NT with keyboard equipped with a magnetic card reader. To log in you had to insert the card and that supplied your username, effectively. You then entered your password and logged in. Any removal of the card had to lock the machine or abort the login process and leave the machine secure. That seemed to work fine.
Separately, we had additional software installed that, after login, but before showing the desktop, would show you information about your last login session - e.g. when/where. That seemed to work fine.
Unfortunately, whilst that dialog was being shown, it was impossible to lock the machine. Which meant that so long as you choose to remove the card before acknowledging the dialog, you'd end up logged in with no card inserted.
Loved showing that one to the guys who had lovingly crafted these separate systems.
Sorry, are you admitting to opening post not addressed to you? You know you're not meant to do that, right?
Blot out the address (not technically required but sometimes the helpful posties will attempt to redeliver if the address is still visible), scrawl "not know at this address" on the envelope, stick it back in a post box.
Bear in mind - *every* other space launch provider *always* dumps their first stages at see.
This is a Block 4 Falcon - only really good for one relaunch anyway and this is it. So there's no point recovering these things anyway when everyone else gets to dispose of *their* empties at sea and there's no reuse potential.
By the time any other provider is going to be able to do any reuse, SpaceX should have cleared their backlog of Block 3s/4s and just have a stock of Block 5s which are built for extensive reuse.
For two independent sets of heads to be able to work with the same sets of tracks, the positioning needs to be spot on. When you have one set of heads, it doesn't matter *precisely* where the heads go when they're looking for track 13, so long as they consistently move to the same physical position each time track 13 is asked of. But with two sets of heads, they also have to agree on what that position should be.
I remember that, years ago, this was the reason given for the much lower densities on removable media than were available with hard drives - because they were, effectively, subject to being interacted with by many sets of heads over their lifetime and so the tracks needed to be wide to allow for misalignment.
Perhaps this is less of an issue these days - not sure.
From the employer. Higher up in the article:
Your employer explains that you can get your bonus if you achieve 70 per cent Promoters, 20 per cent Neutrals and 10 per cent Detractors (70P,20N,10D).
Your employer has told you you can achieve your bonus if you hit these figures. The rest of the article is pointing out that it's untrue.
Neutral when the scale has 10 possible values means that you *ought* to treat 5 and 6 as equal. Otherwise, your neutral is 4 steps away from Evil but 5 steps away from Godlike.
This is why if you _want_ to offer a neutral answer option you ought to have an odd number of values on your scale.
(Note that the NPS system has a 0 which you've not assigned a value to, but apparently it's worse than Evil)
Since our primary means of tracking aircraft is via radar, the idea that we'd massively scale out our radar infrastructure across the oceans despite them containing 0 military or civilian targets is far more preposterous.
I won't get into the actual likely capabilities of spy satellites vs Hollywood depictions, but even in Hollywood they realise that you have to maneuverer satellites to have sight of targets of interest and this takes time.
They didn't do a "version number reset". They follow a long standing convention that, just because something is composed of digits and dots, that doesn't necessarily mean that its a decimal number.
1.10 properly comes after 1.9 and is not the same as 1.1
(What really irritates me is when people apply this logic even when the version number contains multiple dots, somehow embracing a convention that multiple dots are allowed and all but the first is ignored, which is not a rule with decimal numbers that I was ever taught)
Think in terms of rotation. If a planet is orbiting a star clockwise (from some viewpoint) and the planet is also rotating clockwise (from same viewpoint), there is zero axial tilt.
If, from the same perspective, the planet is orbiting the star clockwise, but is rotating anti-clockwise, the axial tilt may be described as 180 degrees.
Because the size of such a relay and its power requirements are huge - beyond anything we could launch today. Bear in mind that we can only receive information from Voyager because we have vast dish antennas sat here on the ground.
Also bear in mind that the particular trajectories used for the probes was only possible due to a planetary alignment. You can't launch a probe a couple of years later and have it follow anything close to the same trajectory.
The whole point of the legal challenge is to assert that the President does not have this power - that he's overstepped the bounds of what he's allowed to do.
Whether that's true or not will take time for the courts to decide. But in the meantime, and the subject of this very fast schedule, is that its believed that there's a good chance this legal challenge will succeed and so a Temporary Restraining Order is currently warranted.
Even if the TRO is overturned this week, the legal challenge itself will still go ahead and determine whether the President has overstepped his authority.
It'll be in the unpressurised trunk - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_(spacecraft)#Dragon_CRS - basically, only part of the dragon capsule is pressurised and accessed via a docking port. The rest can contain extra goodies but they're only got at by external means (robot arms or space walks)
What gets me down is that, I practically guarantee that today, or next week, or next month, someone will sit down and write the next great "value added" application to be pre-installed for one of these vendors - and make exactly the same mistakes yet again.
There doesn't seem to be any learning here.
I can't make sense of the geography here:
> as the Airbus A340 passed over the west coast of Ireland.
Okay. So it was well into its flight then?
> apparently targeted by a laser some six or seven miles west of Heathrow
Now, either the laser was "six or seven" miles west of Heathrow, but somehow they were able to aim into the cockpit of a plane quite far away and heading west? Or the plane itself was "six or seven" miles west of Heathrow and the British Isles are significantly smaller than I thought it was?
Has anyone noticed that when people are out and about in public and *not in cars*, they're not displaying *any* kind of license information? That means that they can't be tracked and identified. Surely, this means we should tattoo license numbers onto everyone's foreheads.
For the sake of the children.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019