Re: So how does this work?
No idea whether it work, but maybe adding a bit of PEG400 to the PG/VG mixture would help with solubility issues?
3577 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Nov 2007
... containers don't need to be smart if it scans in and out and the shelves have weight sensors. If it knows that you have taken a 1pt carton out, it got 595g lighter, and when you put it back in it only gets 205g heavier again, then it knows you've used 390ml milk and that you have 178ml left.
But I think it's more likely that your supermarket could tell you than that your fridge could: "Hey, John, you used to buy 2pts milk a day and one box of Cap'n Crunch a week but you haven't bought much milk recently, do you need more?"
This approach is still fallible, of course: "No thank you, Tesco, now that my sons are teenagers I just have milk piped from the local dairy. And when we run out of cereal I have to call Eddie Stobarts"
Matt, you actually made sense in your previous post and presented a cogent argument. In this post you have reverted back to ad-hominems against everyone with whom you disagree. In contrast, there is some pretty decent conservative / (sometimes quite far) right-of-centre writing on El Reg, what with Tim, Andrew and Lewis, and they generally present a coherent view with which one who holds a differing perspective can engage -- and even in some cases be persuaded.
You are of course right that this is conjecture. However, your statement that this conjecture is "based on the paranoid dribblings of Internet wannabees" (whatever they are), along with your terms "Sheeple fantasies", "A$$nut" and "Snowjob", adds very little to your argument - I would say it detracts from it.
"compression followed by XORing with a 32 bit secret which is sent in plaintext by the server"
Wow, that is truly weird, after all the apparent effort in setting up botnets and C&C servers. So I'm guessing you would only need one unencrypted copy of any of the encrypted files, use a few different compression algorithms on it, and you'd soon have the key, even if they'd sent it securely.
I'd have paid up or given up, as I'd have been expecting to crack AES256 or something of that ilk.
Now, I'm probably going to risk downvotes here but ... I firmly believe you should be able to click a link without worrying. Otherwise what is the point of QR codes? URL shorteners? The reason why clicking some links causes problems is because there are still far too many vulnerabilities in browsers.
I should be able to point a pdf reader, graphics program, word processor or *browser* at any input whatsoever in perfect safety. The fact that I cannot tells me that software writers have been pissing away their time tweaking the interfaces and adding nice-to-have features rather than addressing the real purpose of these programs.
... or comparative analysis. Maybe the author was on a deadline. Maybe it was a side effect of something fun." -- Don Jefe
As is often the case with El Reg, the real insight sometimes has to wait until the comments, not the least your own. I shall bear the words of your mentor in mind when I come accross 'militarized' corporate-speak, as I have always found it quite jarring.
What fascinates me is what determines when a company can change tack, and do it successfully - I guess I'm thinking of cases like Nokia moving into mobile telecomms (and, it seems, your own company) - and when it results in a fatal split of focus. Even when a split is avoided the new direction may still end up with the company sliding into irrelevance and eventual failure. Is it mainly the foresight of those steering the organisation, or is it their luck?
IMHO, the book is great, but this particular advice is not always right --- sometimes choosing someone on first impressions is the right thing to do: a receptionist, a salesperson, and a complaint handler, for instance, will pretty much be rated by all your customers on first impressions too.
"The problem is that technology is advancing far quicker than the laws governing it. Partly because of the speed of the developments, partly because of the slowness of bureaucracy but mostly I suspect because vested interests are far closer to the ears of our elected so-called representatives than the the electorate is."
The irony is that advancing technology like this is probably one of the few areas in which lawmakers need to be moderately active, as laws governing well established concepts like theft, assault and homicide have largely reached steady state. Yet they prefer to waste their time with endless tweaking -- or berating us about what we eat, drink or inhale.
"self lowering toilet seat"
How about a device which detects when some barbarian is going to cover your entire bathroom with a fine mist of urine and reads them this message: "Do you think you're outdoors, seriously? Why are you lifting the seat, do you think it's ok to piss on the rim of the porcelain? If you're confident you won't, you won't need to lift the seat, will you?"
Honestly, if you think it's ok to piss standing up when you are in someone else's house, just try it in your own, turn off the lights, and go in there with a blacklight. Still feel happy about it? Toilet seats lift so you can clean them; that's all.
Indeed - the very first thing you learn when you start to understand cryptographic techniques is that you will never* be good enough to roll your own.
*obviously there's always a slim chance that you are a maths genius in their twenties, and maybe you will have a contribution to make in a decade or two
"... some poor project or IT guy just sent all of the keys to NBC’s servers to the wrong guy in one mistyped username"
Err, no. Those keys should never have been uploaded, unencrypted, in the first place, even if you know who all your GitHub users are; the mistake is a LOT bigger than mistyping a username.
I agree. However, although I'm more a sort of open source guy than corporate by choice (though I have to be the opposite professionally) I feel compelled to point out that change-for-changes-sake is not purely corporate, otherwise we wouldn't have had the Gnome / Unity fiasco.
Poor Hannah Foster, for example ...
"Worst of all, there is no standard, reputable way of evaluating the contribution each employee makes in the long term."
Only true if the employee's manager has no understanding of what is going on. This is such a common scenario that we almost take it for granted, but it doesn't have to be that way.
My first IT consultancy boss had it right - interview in the pub to determine whether candidate was good team material; take the CV on trust; be absolutely ruthless about insisting on success in trial period (that's when you realize if the CV is true); ongoing monitoring to determine who needs intervention (and of what kind) to keep them on or push them off.
It is not as easy as you think to identify "useful" degrees
Proved by the fact that many people always pick "media degrees" as useless without looking at either how much those graduates can earn (useful to student); how big the UK media sector is (useful to UK) or how hard it is to offshore that kind of work (UK media graduates therefore useful to UK Business).
The routing isn't so much forced as very strongly suggested, at least in all IKEA stores I have been in, in the UK and in Europe. Next time you go, when you get to the top of the stairs, try turning the opposite way to the main flow of people; you will find yourself in the restaurant almost immediately. There are similarly a set of shortcuts downstairs - look for doors that appear a bit official and fire door like but do not have any labels saying 'staff only'.