full-disclosure - Are consumers being misled by "phishing"?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu Jul 13 19:30:23 2006
From: juergen at fiedlerfamily.net (Juergen Fiedler)
Subject: Are consumers being misled by "phishing"?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 04:11:14PM +0200, Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
> Salut,
> 
> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 20:55 +0000, Bill Weiss wrote:
> > In case others didn't catch it, IQ is _defined_ as a normal distribution
> > with the mid-point at 100.  Thus, half of the population has a
> > double-digit IQ.  The criteria for a 100 IQ is recalculated every once in
> > a while to maintain the balance.
> 
> Well, this isn't 100% true, is it? AFAIR, the IQ of 100 is the average
> knowledge of a person of your age. So if there's someone like my
> girlfriend, whose IQ exceeds all known limits, there are automatically
> more people with a two-digit IQ than those with a three-digit one.

That would be true if the incredibly smart people weren't balanced by
the incredibly not-so-smart ones.

> So if the majority of people with an IQ higher than 100 have an IQ which
> is a _lot_ above 100, this would mean that the amount of 419 victims is
> actually _higher_ than 50% of the humanity.

Assuming that the people with 100% are actually at the peak of the
bell curve (as it is supposed to be), the opposite would be the case:
There would be just as many people with an IQ less than 100 as there
are people with a higher one. But since 100 is a three digit number as
well, there would be more three digit people than two digit ones.

Sorry, couldn't resist...