It's pretty easy to tell when a candidate has the answer memorized, and it is pretty easy to push them to explain their answer beyond what sites like this give. If they can't tell you things about how their answer would scale, what the tradeoffs are, why they used data structures they did, and what they'd do with slight modifications to the question, they probably won't just skate through the interview.
I have definitely had similar experiences and can remember fiction and non-fiction I read from when I was in jr high school like I'd just read it yesterday (24 now). I can recall the plots and what I took away from each.
This article and most of this thread is just bizarre to me.
yeah exactly, not long ago the only update anyone ever got was to tell them that their Wakemate was delayed longer. People complained, and the company improved their communication. I think its great, especially from a HN readers point of view, we get to see a little bit more about the process.
I'm with you. In college - being in Seattle - it would frequently pour down rain while I was walking between classes. At first, I would run and find cover like everyone else, but after awhile I gave up and started walking, head uncovered, treating the falling raindrops as thousands of gentle reminders that I'm alive. Once or twice, I couldn't help but just bursting out laughing.
(P=!NP would allow easily creating a problem which God himself cannot solve, making omnipotence impossible. Science is not allowed to prove/disprove the exitance of God per definition, thus P must be equal to NP, where even a non-constructive proof would allow for a God.)"
I wonder what kind of education leads to statements like this.
because it's an interesting question.
It explains why WEP is bad to use, as opposed to the handwave of "it's easy to crack." Therefore, while it could have been better worded (perhaps "why exactly is wep bad to use?"), the question is, in my humble opinion, deserving of being asked here.
younata, I just read the question once again, I wish it was about why it's bad to use WEP, it is not. He clearly describes what he is doing or trying to do, and wonder why it doesn't work, he's looking for a way to make it work (crack WEP) for Evil or not Evil intention is not the point.
In no way does it explain why WEP is bad to use, suer the answers may at some extend help one to understand why WEP is bad to use.
A google search on "why is not good to use Wep" is very helpful.
I downvoted you because you are drawing a meaningless distinction. "We" crack lots of stuff. The methodology behind cracking WEP is interesting, accessible, and worth understanding. It's a perfectly appropriate topic.