Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:surpising (Score 1) 168

by sexconker (#47533129) Attached to: Amazon's Ambitious Bets Pile Up, and Its Losses Swell

What the value of the shares you bought going up doesn't count as a return anymore?

It only counts as profit if you sell before the bubble bursts.
If Amazon remains unprofitable, investment firms will decide to dump the stock one day, cashing out and killing the value of the stock.
Even if individuals hear about the stock dropping 10 seconds after it starts, it's too late. They'll be fucked.

Comment: Re: Eh? (Score 1) 137

by sexconker (#47532093) Attached to: Internet Explorer Vulnerabilities Increase 100%

The first 6 months of 2014 has seen a 100% increase in vulnerabilities compared to the previous 6 months.

Neither TFS nor TFA say that. It uses the following numbers for IE.

Year - National Vulnerability Database - Exploit-DB
2013 - 130 - 11
H1-2014 - 133 - 3

They already mentioned that the timeframe of interest in the first line of the summary was 6 months.

Of 2014. They're comparing it to all of 2013.

The amount 133 is ~twice as big as 65.

Where are you getting 65? It's not mentioned anywhere in the report. Here's the report. CTRL+F 65.

The amount has increased by more than 100%.

No, the rate has. The amount in 2014 thus far is a little more than the amount in all of 2013. You can look up all the CVEs for IE and repeat their research and specifically divide 2013 up into 1st half and 2nd half if you want to compare totals and make that claim regarding totals.

Comment: Re: Eh? (Score 1) 137

by sexconker (#47531971) Attached to: Internet Explorer Vulnerabilities Increase 100%

They want to say the number of vulnerabilities increased in a certain period, then they have to compare that to another period of the same length.

Not true. You can work out the average speed of a car over 10 miles and do a straight comparison with compare another car over 20 miles. There is no difference here. It's simply a rate. You don't need a common divisor.

If you have 10 vulnerabilities from January 1st through June 30th of 2014 and you have 10 vulnerabilities from January first through December 31st of 2013, that does not mean the number of vulnerabilities has increased by 100%.
The number of vulnerabilities per time has, but the number has not. Both numbers are 10. 10 is 0% more than 10.

They're making a prediction on the total number of vulnerabilities based on the rate of vulnerabilities. That's fine, and it's pretty safe to assume it will end up being fairly accurate. But you cannot say the total number of vulnerabilities has increased 100% unless you're directly comparing total numbers and not rates. The rate of vulnerabilities is 100% higher, vulnerabilities in 2014 are on track to be 100% higher, and possibly the number of vulnerabilities in the first half of 2014 IS 100% higher than the number of vulnerabilities in the first half of 2013, or second half, or last 3 days, or whatever you want to compare against.

They're comparing rates and extrapolating predicted totals and then making a factual claim regarding the totals for 2014. That's simply wrong. 2014's totals are not yet known, we simply have a lower bound. Compare rates and make your claim based on the rates, or compare 6 months in 2014 to 6 months in 2013. Which 6 months is up to you - you could choose the first half, the second half, the even months, the odd months, the months with the most vulnerabilities, the months with the least vulnerabilities, etc.

Comment: Good (Score -1, Troll) 285

The DoE should be focused on shit that works. They should not be spending a dime on any "green" bullshit since it's destined to fail, nor should they be wasting any resources on any climate change "research" (politicking).

Get back to actual science. I don't yet have a fusion reactor in my home. What the fuck am I paying you clowns for?

Comment: Re: Eh? (Score 1) 137

by sexconker (#47524855) Attached to: Internet Explorer Vulnerabilities Increase 100%

The number of vulnerabilities per time is not the same as the number of vulnerabilities.
You can't say the number of vulnerabilities has increased 100% by using two measurements of vulnerabilities / time and then normalizing both with respect to time. That gets you a normalized number of vulnerabilities per time, not a normalized number of vulnerabilities.

Comment: Re:Makes Perfect Sense (Score 1) 52

by sexconker (#47510415) Attached to: AirMagnet Wi-Fi Security Tool Takes Aim At Drones

If someone plugs in a router with a spoofed MAC of an allowed device for that port, you'd never know.
Most routers support MAC spoofing in order to forward the MAC of your main PC to the cable / DLS modem. Many ISPs will block a new MAC for a period of time or until your call up and tell them. If you require authentication on a wired port, they could set that up as well.
The only way to prevent a MITM attack is to physically secure the network wiring or centrally manage per-device encryption keys/certificates. And I know you're not doing that. And if you want to claim that you are, I also know you're not doing it for your printers and other devices.

For wireless, if someone plugs in a wireless router you might be able to detect it if you have antennas in range, but you can't stop it.

The air marshal shit Meraki does is completely illegal. You can't jam wifi, which is all Meraki does for "containment". They even fucking admit that it's illegal to use it in their documentation.
From , page 8:

2As containment renders any standard 802.11 network completely ineffective, containment measures should taken in your airspace. Extreme caution should be taken to ensure that containment is not being performed on a legitimate network nearby and, action should only be taken as a last resort. Unauthorized containment is prosecutable by law (subject to the FCC’s Communications Act of 1934, Section 333, ‘Willful or Malicious Interference’).

Beyond the legality, it doesn't even work in a manner that could be called secure. It creates bubbles of noise where NO wifi works (hello DoS). It becomes a loudness war and the rogue AP will always have a bubble of effective range where it will win out. If you have two Meraki networks near each other, they often get into wars, shutting each other down where their edges meet.

VLANs has nothing to do with wireless security. Segregating your networks with a VLAN is pointless - all the devices that are wireless APs also include routing functions. Use them. VLANs are meant for logically extending a network that is physically separate, not for logically separating a network that is physically connected.

Comment: Re:Here we go... (Score 1, Interesting) 454

by sexconker (#47505963) Attached to: MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures

They're not at war? Are you high? Hamas has declared war on Israel from day one. At this very moment Israel and Gaza is exchanging rockets missiles and bombs and hundreds of people are being killed every day. If, as you say, "Israel could wipe them out in a matter of days", then do it and get it over with.

Israel are trying to minimise casualties on both sides. Hamas are trying to maximise Israeli casualties, and use Palestinian casualties to their political advantage. It's a perfect example of asymmetrical warfare; the capabilities and aims of the combatants are completely different.

Israel has the military capability to destroy Gaza, just as the US had the military capability to destroy Iraq or Afghanistan back in 2003. But doing so is not in their long-term interests.

Do yourself a favor and drop your agenda and take a fresh look at what has been going on for decades. Israel is absolutely not trying to minimize casualties. They'll do everything and anything they can get away with, toeing the line as long as they have the backing of the US, which prevents anyone from doing anything about their horse shit.

Comment: Re:Here we go... (Score 1) 454

by sexconker (#47505925) Attached to: MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures

If Israel is not willing to do the above, then don't complain when Hamas have to improvise just to have a fighting chance of defending themselves.

Two points: First, their improvisations are war crimes; second, Hamas are the aggressor. This is not particularly complicated.

There is no crime in war. War has no law.

Regardless, if you want to morally judge the actions of both sides here, Israel comes out looking far, far worse.

Comment: Re:Or is it unrealistic speed? (Score 1) 154

Hardly - you up to join me for a 10 mile hike tomorrow?

Seriously - walk around for a while at a normal walking pace and pay attention to how fast your body actually turns when going around corners. Or sit somewhere and watch other people do so as they go about their day - it's not nearly as fast as you would imagine. Certainly we *can* turn much faster without much effort, but we don't normally do so. Which means that FPS style games are simulating us turning much faster than normal, and if you add in wide-FOV VR you end up in the situation where your eyes are telling you your turning much faster than you're acclimated to, and your inner ears that you're standing still rather than subjecting them to the rather divergent set of accelerations such a maneuver should be causing.

Why would I hike 10 miles with you?
Why would you even compare "normal walking pace" to an FPS?
Beyond that, 3-4 seconds for a 360 at a casual pace is still ridiculously absurd. I'd say anything over 1.5 seconds indicates either obesity, octogeneriacity, or some other sort of disability.
I was referring to shitty FOVs for console games, not absurd fisheye Quake shit. A correct field of view can be determined based on the display and distance. You won't get motion sickness from a wide FOV if you just set the FOV correctly.
And your inner ear takes a back seat to your vision. Your brain will quickly ignore your inner ear if it's not matching what you're seeing unless you have a medical condition. This is why the spinning tunnel illusion works ( This is why it's difficult to stand still with your eyes closed. This is why the VR demos have shit like walking across a high beam. This is why when you're dizzy from spinning around 10 times with your head down on a baseball bat at the company picnic, you should focus on the guy in the outfield to steady yourself, not the ball on the tee a few feet in front of you. The more your vision mismatches what your inner ear says, the more quickly your brain stops listening to your inner ear.
When your inner ear is overriding your vision for whatever reason, you get a condition known as vertigo. If your inner ear is working normally and you have vertigo, you get a little dizzy whenever that fluid sloshes around. If your inner ear is fucked up due to infection or whatever and it's sending you bad data, you get debilitating loss of balance, motion sickness, etc.

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse